1966-03-31

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 31, 1966
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 31st March, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



INDUSTRY


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Hon. members will recall that in dealing with questions asked during consideration of departmental estimates, I indicated my intention to formulate appropriate guidance to help subsidiaries of foreign companies conduct their affairs as good corporate citizens of Canada.
Much attention has been given in recent years to the role of subsidiaries of foreign companies in the Canadian economy and to the difficulties which can arise from the responsibilities of subsidiaries both to their parent companies and to the community in which they operate. Many views have been expressed on this important subject. In recent weeks I have had helpful consultations with chief executive officers of many Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies located in various countries. I have concluded that a statement of what is expected of subsidiary companies as regards their responsibilities in the Canadian community would be welcomed and would be of benefit to all concerned.
Accordingly I am writing to the heads of subsidiaries of foreign companies in Canada setting forth some guiding principles of good corporate behaviour. In the letter I also indicate my intention to ask the larger subsidiary companies to provide periodically, on a confidential basis, information on certain aspects of their operations and financing.
I beg leave to table a copy of this letter, and ask permission to have it printed as an appendix to today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the minister have leave to table this letter and have it printed as an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letter referred to above, see appendix.]


Robert Henry Winters: Hon. members will observe from a reading of the letter that the principles emphasize above all the need for subsidiary companies to strive for maximum realization of their potential and for full participation in, and identification with, the life of the Canadian community. While these principles have been formulated with regard to the particular circumstances pertaining to the operations in Canada of foreign affiliated companies, the underlying objective sought is equally applicable to all Canadian companies.
I trust that this statement of the basic essentials of good corporate citizenship will contribute to a better understanding of the role of subsidiaries of foreign companies in our economy, and will encourage and facilitate their full participation in our growth and development in line with Canada's trade, economic and social needs.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker I had hoped to have been able to see a copy of the letter, but that has not been possible, so any observations I make will therefore be of a general character.
There has been nothing more conducive to disagreement between Canada and the United States than the adoption of a certain attitude on the part of the administration in Washington in the exercise of authority over Canadian corporations which are, in effect, subsidiaries of United States corporations.
March 31, 1966

Canadian Subsidiaries of Foreign Companies The guide lines recently enunciated were of such a nature as to constitute a derogation of Canadian sovereignty. It was for that reason we took the strongest possible objection to several portions thereof.
I recall very well the arguments we had on this question during the days we were in office. One of the most striking was at the time we entered into arrangements to sell wheat to communist China. The then U.S. administration was opposed to any policy of dealing with communist countries, in nonstrategic materials as well as in strategic ones, and did nothing which would allow Canada to carry out her policies.
Indeed, the only wheat loaders available were those manufactured by a Canadian subsidiary of a United States corporation, and almost at the last moment word was received that we were not going to be able to secure those loaders.
I saw the then President of the United States and, as reference has been made in one or two books to the events of that time, I go no further than to say that I made it perfectly clear that if that attitude were not altered Canada would have to take the strongest possible action. That was interpreted as anti-Americanism. In fact, it was pro-Cana dianism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I say to the minister that he will have widespread approval for the announcement he has made. The stand he has taken is one we have long advocated, and which we carried out when in office. I realize that in the stand he has taken, with the wide knowledge he has of corporate business, he places Canadian interests first and foremost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is and has been our attitude, and will continue to be our attitude. We welcome American investment, but we ask that American and other foreign investment in Canada shall so conduct itself as to merit the description that he used, namely good Canadian citizenship.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to commend the minister for these economic guide lines which are being sent out to the subsidiaries of United States corporations in this country. I think this is a great-


Robert Henry Winters: May I interrupt to say not only United States but all foreign subsidiaries.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But as I understood the minister and from reading his letter, it is primarily directed to United States subsidiaries in this country. This is a long way from the position the government was taking in December, when the American guide lines were being described by ministers of the crown as an economic political windfall. I think in his letter to the various corporations in Canada the minister has put his finger on the real problem, and that is that we in Canada do not object to-on the contrary we welcome-companies coming into this country which bring capital, technical know-how and research capacity which in many cases we have not got here.
The real problem, as the minister has pointed out in his letter, is that the decisionmaking power may be located outside Canada. That decision-making power may be used not in the interests of Canada but in the interests of some other country. I hope the minister's letter, and the questionnaire he is sending out, will enable him to get information that will permit the government to formulate a policy, but I want to point out that the real nub of the question is contained in No. 3 of the guide lines, which says:
Maximum development of market opportunities in other countries as well as in Canada.
I think the government will have to spell this out a lot more specifically if we are not to have a repetition of the situation which obtained last summer when three milling companies in this country, subsidiaries of United States corporations, refused to mill wheat into flour because it was being sold to the Soviet Union for transshipment to Cuba.
The Canadian government has to make it clear, both to the United States authorities and the United States subsidiaries in this country, that once a corporation is domiciled in Canada, registers under the laws of this country, uses the resources and labour capacity of this country, it is subject to the laws and the policies of the government of Canada.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I think this will have to be spelled out much more specifically than has been done in the letter. I believe it will have to be made clear to the United States government that they had better get over the idea that United States subsidiaries in this country are subject to United States legislation, particularly having regard to trading with the enemy legislation, which has been used in the past to
March 31. 1966

exercise control over United States subsidiaries in this country, which control has often been exercised to the disadvantage of Canada.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like, first of all, to thank the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) who sent us, a few minutes before the house met this afternoon, the letter addressed to Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies. I thank him also for sending us that statement written in good French, and I feel that he deserves congratulations for that.
Mr. Speaker, I analysed the guiding principles of good behaviour prepared by the minister for subsidiaries of foreign companies and I feel that, if those principles are put in practice, the Minister of Trade and Commerce will succeed in solving a lot of problems.
The minister recommends to Canadian subsidiaries to get their raw materials in Canada and I think that, if all the Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies did that, it could help the economic situation in Canada.
Among the objectives sought, the minister states:
Where applicable, to extend processing of natural
resource products to the extent practicable on an economic basis.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the minister will never stress too much the importance of processing right here in Canada the natural resources which we have to such a large extent in our country.
The minister also asks the officials of Canadian subsidiaries of American companies to use Canadian technicians and personnel as much as possible. I feel that is a most commendable step and that the American companies operating in Canada should take it without delay.
The minister also recommends to give Canadians more opportunities to become part of the financial structure of those companies.
Mr. Speaker, another important thing is guiding principle No. 3 which reads as follows:
Maximum development of market opportunities in other countries as well as in Canada.
The minister is asking Canadian subsidiaries of American or foreign corporations to try and increase their exports. I think that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) should profit by that recommendation.
DEBATES	3645
Canadian Subsidiaries of Foreign Companies
If you were to assign those Canadian companies the objective of exporting for an amount equal to that which they send in other countries in the form of dividends, profits and interest, then the Canadian balance of payments would no longer be a burden for our people and it would stop being unfavourable to us and upsetting for the Canadian economy.
One of the main recommendations the Minister of Trade and Commerce should make to those Canadian companies is to assign them the objective of having their exports equal the amount of money they are sending to foreign countries in the form of interest, dividends and profits.
Mr. Speaker, before I conclude my remarks, I do want to join with the Leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) in stating that all foreign companies located in Canada and using our labour force, our natural resources, in short, our capacities, should behave like Canadian corporations, having in mind, first and foremost the interests of the Canadian economy.
IEnglish1


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I should like to say that the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to be commended for setting out these initial guide lines as far as foreign subsidiaries in Canada are concerned. This is only a first step, because I think the success of these guide lines will depend upon the degree and depth of the co-operation he receives from the subsidiaries and their parent companies which control them.
There is one point I suggest the minister might have made more specific in regard to this original set of guide lines, and this is something that should be watched carefully. I refer to the situation which often exists when subsidiaries of foreign companies are restricted by their parent companies in competing for and supplying goods in competition with their parent companies so far as foreign business is concerned. Certainly this restriction hampers our own Canadian subsidiaries and affects our own trade pattern, and is a very important factor in regard to the difficulties we have with our balance of payments.
Again I commend the minister for this step in the right direction, the success of which will be seen as this is further developed.

March 31. 1966
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE



CHANGE IN ORDER ANNOUNCED FOR THIS DAY

Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of this opportunity, if I may, to indicate a slight change in the business of the house for today. I indicated last night that Bill C-145, dealing with commercial fisheries, would be the first item of business today, but we will not be able to take this bill today.
Further, I indicated the sequence for consideration of two bills standing in the name of the Minister of Forestry, Bill C-151 and C-152, in that order. We now propose to call Bill C-152 first, as we feel that this arrangement will lend itself to a more orderly discussion of these two bills.



CHEESE-ANNOUNCEMENT OF INCREASE IN U.S. GLOBAL QUOTA

Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, the United States import restrictions on Canadian Cheddar cheese were among the specific trade matters discussed at the meeting of the joint Canada-United States committee on trade and economic affairs held in Washington earlier this month.
I am pleased to be able to inform hon. members that the United States has today announced an increase of over 900,000 pounds in the U.S. global import quota on Cheddar cheese for the balance of the current quota year, which ends June 30.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: Further, consideration is being given by the United States to increasing the over-all U.S. import quota on Cheddar cheese in the net quota year by as much as
5.5	million pounds, and to establishing a supplementary quota of 1.2 million pounds specifically for aged Cheddar. This would give a total global Cheddar cheese quota of over
9.5	million pounds annually, as compared to the present quota of about 2.8 million pounds.
Under the existing quota Canada is restricted in its sales to the U.S. market to a total of 614,000 pounds annually. This amount will be immediately increased by Canada's share of the supplementary quota for the current year, some 200,000 pounds.
In future years, under the new proposal, Canada might expect to obtain access for as much as 1.8 million pounds of Cheddar cheese

annually. In addition, the special quota of 1.2 million pounds on aged cheddar cheese will be of particular interest to Canada as the world's premier producer of specialty aged cheddar. Canadian producers have won for themselves on the U.S. market a wide acceptance of this premium product.
These relaxation measures are a most welcome step forward in opening up the United States market for Canadian cheddar.
Mr. Speaker, I understand this announcement is being made simultaneously in Washington.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement today of the increase in the quota on cheese going into the United States is, I hope, the end of a long debate between the two countries. In my view the imposition of quotas by the United States on cheese going into that country was a definite infringement of the GATT principle. After long years of negotiation they have finally accepted the idea that our share should be increased.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
The second point I want to make in regard to the quota on cheddar cheese is this. When the turkey problem arose in Canada some years ago the Americans protested on the ground that this was in breach of GATT. The question that comes to my mind is, does this mean that the two countries are beginning to get rid of all those breaches of GATT which have accumulated between us, or is this just an isolated policy?



NATIONAL FRUIT OF CANADA


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-162, respecting the national fruit of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Mr. Speaker, this bill would name the McIntosh apple the national fruit of Canada. This fruit is a native product of Canada, and it is suitable that it receive this recognition.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
March 31. 1968	COMMONS



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has yet received the resolution passed unanimously yesterday by the Prince Edward Island legislature protesting the announced readjustment of the timetable for the next phase of the Prince Edward Island causeway, and what does the government propose to do about the protest?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not received the resolution, though I have heard from the Leader of the Opposition about it. We will consider the resolution as soon as we receive it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today the Minister of National Health and Welfare said that either on Friday or the following Monday he would give me the government's decision with respect to supplying health services to the native Indian population, as a result of the decision of the Appeal Court of Saskatchewan on the medicine chest case. Since a week has elapsed, I wonder whether the minister could tell us what decision has been arrived at.


Hon. A. J. McEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my hon. friend I should explain that upon later examination it was concluded that this was a matter more within the competence and jurisdiction of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and I presume, but I would be glad to check, that he is dealing with the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether any decision has been reached. As I pointed out in the question I asked a week ago today, the native Indians must decide fairly soon whether to register an appeal against the decision of the Saskatchewan appeal court, and it is therefore a matter of urgency.
23033-231!
DEBATES	3647
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker, but the whole matter is under review.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I could ask the minister to speed up his review because of the importance of the time limitation attendant upon the possibility of an appeal.


Arthur Laing: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that we have just received the latest annual report of Air Canada and there is no French speaking Canadian among its executive directors, is the minister ready to go in front of that company's headquarters, together with the Minister of Immigration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: No, because the first one was ruled out of order.
[English1


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the government of Canada received any communication from the government of France regarding the decision of President de Gaulle to require the removal of Canadian NATO troops from French soil by April 1, 1967? If so, what is the reaction of the government to such a request?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the house has already been informed of the aide memoire of March 10 in which the government of France informed the Canadian government of its
3648	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry intention to withdraw from NATO's integrated defence program, and to require that Canadian and United States forces assigned to NATO be either withdrawn from France or transferred to French command.
I should like to inform the house that we have now received a further aide memoire, dated March 29 but delivered only late yesterday, setting out the views of the government of France on the timetable which it considers might be followed.
We are now studying this further communication. For the present I would only say that the press reports concerning the dates the French government has in mind appear generally consistent with the information in the aide memoire which we have received. Our understanding with the French authorities is that the text of this communication will be made public on April 1, which is tomorrow. I will therefore table the aide memoire tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: With further reference to that question, Mr. Speaker, is the date April 1, 1967, enumerated in the second aide memoire as the date designated for the removal of Canadian troops from Metz and Marville? When the minister is giving his reply will he say, in view of the report that the United States are contemplating the removal of nuclear arms from French forces in Germany, whether the Canadian government has been consulted in this regard, and what is the attitude of the minister in this connection?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: With regard to the reported decision of the government of the United States, I am not in a position to comment on the validity of that report.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any consultation?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: I have no information on that question, Mr. Speaker, other than what I have seen in the newspapers, although there has been consultation among the 14 governments in the NATO council on the position taken by France.


Robert Norman Thompson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the minister whether it is correct that April 1, 1967, has been the deadline stated by the French government in this aide memoire.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It has been agreed with the government of France that the aide memoire will be tabled tomorrow, and I

DEBATES	March 31. 1968
would prefer not to take issue in any way with the agreement that we have made.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Minister of National Defence whether Canada will be making arrangements to move these troops to bases elsewhere in Europe, or is it the intention to bring them home to Canada?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker. This is a question which is under consideration by the government at the present time and it will be subject to consultation. When the policy is decided it will be announced in the normal course.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I did not quite understand the minister's reply. The hon. member in his question mentioned bringing these troops home to Canada. Is that also under consideration?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should think that in the consideration is included all the possibilities and options which are available to the government, of which that is one.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. My question is based on one asked yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition of the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to certain statements made by Mr. Arnold Smith, secretary general of the commonwealth association, concerning Rhodesia.
Has the minister now had an opportunity of examining the remarks allegedly made by Mr. Smith and, if so, is the Canadian government in agreement with those observations?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, it must be noted first of all that Mr. Smith is at the present time not officially responsible in the same context that he was when he was a Canadian public servant, to the government of Canada. I have had a transcript made of the remarks of Mr. Smith and these are now being studied. I will be glad to see that my hon. friend gets a copy of them. I have also arranged to send a copy to the Leader of the Opposition, who raised this matter yesterday.
March 31. 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	3649


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as I asked the question yesterday it was, does the government of Canada agree with these extraordinary statements which are purported to have been made by the secretary general, or is this just the view of the secretary general without regard to Canada's views or the views of other commonwealth countries?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, when my right hon. friend sees the transcript I am sending him he will observe that the transcript does not correspond in precise terms with my right hon. friend's interpretation of yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest that the minister read the quotations in the press reports. All three press reports are to the effect that I quoted yesterday.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in view of the guide lines laid down in the letter to foreign subsidiaries in Canada. Has the minister heard of any cases of Canadian companies which have large sales in the United States hesitating to deal with the six countries on the forbidden list under the United States act because of fear of retaliation by the United States government regarding Canadian goods entering the United States.


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question based on the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Does Canada have enough Cheddar cheese to fill the increased quotas announced to the United States, or should Canadian dairy farmers be encouraged to produce more of this excellent product?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am inclined to consider this question, though very important, one which should be placed on the order paper.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if you would allow me to make a plea asking you to reconsider your ruling and permit me to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question for the following reason; that new, substantial additional markets have opened up for Canadian cheese, and farmers would like to know about this because the major producing season is just before us.


Mr. Speaker:: To help the farmers I shall allow the Minister of Agriculture to answer.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: To help the farmers, Mr. Speaker, I am willing even to transgress the sacred rules of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: I assure my hon. friend that production now is extremely good, and I feel certain that the farmers of Canada will be able to fill all needs for domestic as well as for foreign markets.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Since the question just asked was ruled out of order and then permitted, and as my question was ruled out of order, might I be permitted to put it again? I was ruled out of order on a question with respect to workers. I wonder if the minister might be allowed to reply to my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NELSON RIVER-FEDERAL AGENCY TO CARRY ON NEGOTIATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I wonder whether the minister could inform the house whether a federal organization has yet been set up to finalize arrangements between the government of Canada and the government of Manitoba pertaining to the Nelson river power development.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
March 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry Atomic Energy of Canada has been selected by the government to be the agency responsible in these negotiations and in the implementation of the agreement. The proper authority will be delegated to Atomic Energy of Canada for that purpose.
May I underline the fact that it was highly desirable to select an agency which has the competence and the organization to handle a project of this type and magnitude.



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, this question is addressed to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister give consideration to making the home in Guelph of the late Colonel John McCrea, the immortal poet who wrote "In Flanders Fields", a national historic site?


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



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. I wonder whether he has anything to report to the house concerning the possibility of a work stoppage by the air traffic controllers at Vancouver international airport?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It has been decided-and the decision was taken before the suggestion was received from the headquarters of the union, though it is in accord with the ideas they have expressed to us-that a group of senior officials of the department should go to Vancouver to look at this situation and attempt to iron out the grievances there. This is being done immediately.



MONTREAL-PROTEST AGAINST DECISION OF LABOUR RELATIONS BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Labour?

Is the minister or a cabinet committee on which he sits prepared to meet the representatives of the C.N.T.U. in connection with the conflict between unions at the C.B.C.?
[English1


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has indicated that he will designate a cabinet group to receive representations from the C.N.T.U., the C.L.C., railway brotherhoods and other interested groups, and then recommend a course of action. Unfortunately these meetings cannot take place until after Easter, but all the unions and the brotherhoods involved have been notified that such meetings will take place at the earliest convenient date in April.



POINT EDWARD NAVAL BASE-JOB PREFERENCE FOR EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence, whom I always find most co-operative. May I ask the minister whether he is aware that according to complaints made to me in the form of a telegram from the National Defence Employees Association at Point Edward Naval base, tradesmen are being brought from the Halifax dockyard to close out this base, and that it is the request of the association that qualified personnel now employed there be retained and receive employment in this closing out procedure? May I also ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Robert Muir: -whether he would use his good offices to investigate this alleged situation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot read a telegram or a message of this nature in the course of asking a question.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, with all due deference to Your Honour I did not quote from the telegram. I read from notes of the question I posed. I just wanted the minister to see that I did have a telegram.

May I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him whether he will investigate the alleged
March 31. 1966

discrimination against workers at Point Edward naval base?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Yes, sir.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, could I complete an incomplete answer which I gave the hon. member for Port Arthur yesterday. The hon. member asked me about the imminence of an increase in freight rates on lumber shipments from northwestern Ontario and I did not have all the information.
I have now been advised that the railways have not yet filed their tariffs with the Board of Transport Commissioners. Thirty days will be required, if they do, before the tariffs can come into operation, and during that time anyone who wishes to take objection to them will be free to do so.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON EQUALIZATION FORMULA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the minister in a position to indicate when he will elaborate on the government's intentions with regard to the equalization formula, especially as it applies to the Atlantic provinces?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a major part of the negotiations with the provinces which are now going on within the tax structure committee. When we have proceeded with those discussions to a sufficient point, and when the premiers have met and ratified the results of the discussions of the ministers of finance, the government will then be in a position to announce their findings.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has Canada recently been given
Inquiries of the Ministry the right to put two Canadian air carriers on the Toronto-Chicago run under the Cana-da-U.S. air agreement and, if so, will Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Air Canada each be allotted one of these runs?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Toronto-Chicago run the hon. gentleman will no doubt recollect that Air Canada has been flying that route for a long time. The new route is the Montreal-Chicago route.


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct another question to the Minister of Transport now that he has had an opportunity to read the report which appeared in the newpapers this morning dealing with the remarks made yesterday by Mr. J. C. Gilmer, president of Canadian Pacific Air Lines, dealing with the Toronto-Chicago run. Would the minister be prepared now to make any comment on the remarks Mr. J. C. Gilmer is reported to have made yesterday on this matter?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the only remark I could usefully make at this moment is that the government's present intentions were announced the day before yesterday, and I should be glad to send the hon. gentleman a copy of that announcement. I do not think it would be wise at this stage of our proceedings to enter into speculation.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a meeting between representatives of the government of British Columbia and representatives of the state of Alaska with respect to the joint development of two large hydroelectric projects in our north? If so, has the minister any comment to make with respect to this meeting between representatives of the province and a foreign state when our government is giving consideration to the question of a national water policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, since receiving notice of my hon. friend's question I have made some inquiries, and I know of no such meeting.
March 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. As it is nearly one year since the initial announcement was made with regard to the Company of Young Canadians; since we are fast approaching the time when young people will be considering involvement in this endeavour for the beginning of the term of September, 1966, I wonder whether we could have some indication from the Prime Minister as to when some legislation with respect to the Company of Young Canadians might be placed before this house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should be very happy indeed if we could get this legislation before the house, but how soon that will be after the Easter recess will depend, of course, on the progress we make in regard to other legislation. The interim director of the company and the interim board are holding meetings over the week end, and I hope to be able to make a statement next week, before the Easter recess.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: While I am on my feet I might answer a question asked yesterday by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, as to whether any arrangement has been made with the authorities of the United States whereby agents of the federal bureau of investigation may enter Canadian homes for the purpose of questioning alleged draft dodgers, without the presence of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or without the consent of that body.
I have checked into this matter, Mr. Speaker, and I wish to confirm that there are no such arrangements.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a question arising out of the answer made by the right hon. gentleman. Has the Prime Minister not received any complaints from at least two places across Canada that investigations are

being carried on by F.B.I. agents or representatives of the United States who, unaccompanied by the R.C.M.P., have been making searches in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have received such complaints, and I am informed that inquiries in Canada requested by the federal bureau of investigation are normally conducted, when they are required to be conducted, by the R.C.M. Police, or the police force having local authority.
The hon. gentleman may recall that there is on the order paper question 1151 of March 24, dealing with certain specific complaints. There will be a reply to that question either next Monday or at the latest next Wednesday, going into the matter in greater detail.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the announcement in today's press of the appointment of a judge to the citizenship court in Sudbury, can the minister tell the house when a similar announcement will be made about Regina?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Very shortly, Mr. Speaker.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs, or in his absence it may be addressed to the acting minister. On March 21 in reply to a question the minister stated that the inquiry into the procedures and organization of the Canadian Pension Commission being conducted by Mr. Justice Wood would complete its hearings either late this month or early next month.
Would the minister inform the house whether the inquiry has completed its hearings? If so, when does he expect the report will be available?


Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise as to when the amendments to the pension legislation, which the minister promised in 1964, will be brought before the house?
March 31. 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS	INTERPRETATION ACT



DESIGNATED AREAS-CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS UNDER ARDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of the ARDA program, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister if the government is contemplating the building of factories or industrial plants in designated areas under the ARDA program?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this is the type of question which should be placed on the order paper.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The answer given to my question by the minister just now was "no". However, this past week I was informed by two members of the crown that these factories are being built under the ARDA program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not believe that is a question of privilege.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister tell the house what funds the government provides for local school boards which accept Indian children in their elementary schools, to help them provide the necessary funds for their classrooms and other operating costs.


Mr. Speaker:: That question should be
placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Secretary of State. I would ask the hon. lady if she will make inquiries and take appropriate action to lay on the table of the house papers called for in motions Nos. 41 and 42, which were agreed to by the house on February 2. These have to do with ship operating and shipbuilding subsidies in British Columbia, and are a matter of urgent concern.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I should be glad to undertake to do that.



INQUIRY AS TO INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: May I ask the
Minister of Justice whether it is the intention of the government this session to introduce any legislation dealing with amendments to the Interpretation Act of Canada, and if so, whether these amendments can be brought before parliament at the earliest possible opportunity because of the wide range of legislation any such amendments would affect.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are contemplating amendments to the Interpretation Act, but I can give no commitment as to when that legislation may be brought in.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: May I take this opportunity of adding to the answer I gave to the hon. member for Yukon. I can inform him that the amendments to the Interpretation Act are now before the banking and commerce committee of the Senate.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Following the recent appearance of strange and mysterious objects flying over Toronto and elsewhere, does the minister intend to institute an inquiry to find out whether this is not a violation of national sovereignty?
[English1


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



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I am about to ask a question that has no personal connotation. I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the federal Department of National Health and Welfare has completed its investigation into the series of fatalities in the
March 31, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry province of Quebec following the alleged consumption of beer. Has any indication of contamination such as botulism been found as a result of the examination?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare was informed by a physician in Quebec city on March 19 that there was a hypothetical possibility of a casual relationship between beer drinking and a new form of primary cardiomyopathy. Cardiomyopathy is a subacute or chronic disorder of the heart muscle of unknown or obscure etiology.
The patients involved were reported to be in the habit of consuming large amounts of beer, in all instances not less than eight quarts per day.
An investigation was immediately launched by officers of the food and drug directorate of the department in close collaboration with the Quebec Department of Health. The physician who reported these cases has been interviewed, as well as other persons associated with the problem. The information available to the Department of National Health and Welfare indicates that there had been approximately 40 suspected cases reported over a period of a few months, with 16 to 18 deaths.
The plant producing the suspected beer was thoroughly investigated and all relevant records examined by officers of the food and drug directorate with the full co-operation of the brewing company involved. No evidence was found of any major change in the method of manufacture or the composition of the beer. Samples of all ingredients as well as the finished product were obtained, and these are now being examined in the laboratories of the food and drug directorate.
I am informed that tests have been conducted under the direction of the Quebec Department of Health for a number of metals in the finished product. Similar tests were carried out on two other brands of beer. The levels found in all cases were within the normal range.
All the alleged cases have been in the Quebec city area. The investigation is being pursued with the utmost vigour in close co-operation with the Quebec Department of Health and municipal officers of Quebec city. Hospitals and physicians responsible for the care of these patients have given all possible assistance. I have been informed that on the suggestion of the deputy minister of health

for the province of Quebec, a committee has been established by the pathologists of the teaching hospitals affiliated with Laval University. One of the senior members of this committee has been charged with the responsibility of pursuing a detailed pathological study of the cases involved.
No direct relationship between the consumption of the suspected beer and the cases of heart failure has been established. Other factors not yet identified may be involved in these cases.
However, the brewery involved has informed the Department of National Health and Welfare that as a precautionary measure they intend to withdraw from the market and destroy under government supervision all existing stocks of beer produced in their Quebec city plant. This is a voluntary action taken on the initiative of the company but with the full knowledge and agreement of the Quebec Department of Health and the Department of National Health and Welfare.
I thank the house for its indulgence in allowing me to give this rather detailed answer to the important question which was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


John James Greene: May I point out that there are never any such problems with milk.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Jack Roxburgh (Norfolk):: I should like to ask the minister whether his department is giving serious consideration to looking into the effects of the drinking of alcohol on public health in Canada. Is he putting money aside to look into the effects of drinking on health?


Mr. Ricard:: Also tobacco.


Mr. Keays:: Can the minister tell us whether it was bottled beer or canned beer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I understand that the investigation has not fully disclosed the exact source, whether it was bottled, canned or draft beer, or a combination of all three.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: A brief supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister say whether there are samples of this beer still available to his department for any additional tests which may be required?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Angus MacLean: Of a scientific character, of course.
March 31, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My information is that a large number of cases of this beer have been taken over by officers of the department, and it is understood the investigation will be a long term one.


John George Diefenbaker: So there may be no mistake, I raised the question, and I dissociate myself from any implications in the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Justice. I should like to ask whether there is any intention of introducing legislation this session in connection with a recent report of the restrictive trade practices commission, particularly with regard to the prohibiting of so-called tied sales in the farm implement industry.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: will take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the President of the Privy Council.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lee Grills (Hastings South):: After the kind comment by the Minister of Agriculture a few minutes ago comparing milk with something else, I should like to ask the hon. gentleman a question on another subject. Now that the cheese export market seems to be enlarging-and I am glad about that-will the minister impress on Treasury Board the need for some assistance to cheese factory amalgamations for which applications have been made?


John James Greene: I will certainly give consideration to that suggestion.



AERONAUTICS ACT

Hon. John N. Turner (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-153, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced in almost its present form two or three years ago. The object is to amend the
Aeronautics Act
Aeronautics Act so as to permit the making of regulations concerning fees and other matters calculated to enhance the safety of air travel and so as to enable changes to be made in the composition of the Air Transport Board and to consolidate the powers of the board.
The amendments are in the main intended to clarify existing legislation and to consolidate some of it. With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I will review some of the questions which appeared to be contentious on the last occasion the bill was introduced.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The proposals with regard to charges for facilities and services provided by the Department of Transport will not basically change the present system of tariffs which the department has imposed under the Financial Administration Act. I think that is important because the charges contemplated by the Aeronautics Act are already allowed under section 18 of the Financial Administration Act. However, as a result of consultation with the Department of Justice it has been decided that it would be desirable to have the authority for these charges placed in the Aeronautics Act, where it more properly belongs.
The department at the present time makes various charges in connection with its airports and various facilities. They vary from collecting landing fees from aircraft to charges for communication services which may be provided, land and building rentals, and so on. This bill provides that these may henceforth be assessed under the Aeronautics Act on the basis of regulations approved by the Governor in Council, and the charges may be made either in relation to the use of the facilities or to the general provision of a service required by aviation, in other words, not only the use of a facility or service but the availability of a service or facility as well. It is necessary to embody both concepts because in some cases the charge may be related to the actual use of a facility but in other cases the air lines may require a facility to be provided which can be more easily provided on the basis of general availability.
I can give the house two brief examples. Our airport landing fee is a charge for the specific use of the landing facilities. Our terminal service charge is for the use of facilities of a joint nature such as joint baggage handling areas and passenger marshalling areas. The provision of a new type of radio aid to navigation might require a

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
charge, but it would be impossible to tell in the course of any year on how many specific occasions any one aircraft might use this facility.
The objective of a system of charges for air facilities is to make our airports self-sustaining, and in fact this objective is already being achieved at our largest airports. Progress toward this objective must be gradual and charges cannot be imposed in a manner or at a rate which make it impossible for aviation and for the aviation industry, commercial and non-commercial, to grow. On the other hand, it is reasonable that the users of these facilities should make some payment toward them rather than expect the total cost to be borne by the general taxpayer.
I should now like to make one or two short comments relating to international aviation. At an earlier stage, when this bill was introduced three years ago, it was felt that the government should have the right to levy charges for these services on aircraft operating outside Canada where, nevertheless, such aircraft were depending in the course of flight on the availability of facilities and services provided by the Canadian government in Canada. That would relate to overflights, international flights over Canada that neither began nor terminated on Canadian soil. This was a source of concern to the international air lines which felt it might become a dangerous precedent for other countries, and in addition there would be the question of the levying of the charges and the relationship between the charges and the costs.
As a result of extensive consultation between the Department of Transport and the international air lines, as represented by the International Air Transport Association, it has been concluded that this particular provision should be withdrawn so that the present legislation will apply only in respect of operations within Canada. This is reflected in clause 1 of the bill. I would be prepared, Mr. Speaker, to deal with specific questions as they come up either on second reading or in the committee stage.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when this measure was last before parliament in the form of Bill C-117 I made fairly extensive criticisms of it, chief among which were criticisms with respect to the two deletions which the minister has mentioned. This bill, if the minister will permit me to differ with him, is not in almost the same form as

the bill presented in 1963. It is in quite a different form.
Two of the main objections which were taken at the time of its first introduction were with respect, first, to the inclusion of the provision that any charge authorized by the bill would constitute a debt due and owing to the Crown. In that respect this bill is not almost the same. As a member of his profession the minister well knows that the original provision meant that all the government had to do was to render an account to an international air line and that would immediately constitute a debt due and owing to the Crown, with all that that implies.
Without requiring to go to court the government could obtain a writ of extent from the Exchequer Court, close the offices of all the international air lines and seize all their aircraft that might be in Canada at the time on the basis of such a writ of extent. I can only say that we in this party are very happy that the government has seen the light and has removed that extremely objectionable feature from the bill. I had hoped the minister might have made reference to the strong representations made from this side of the house when the bill was debated in 1963 in addition to his reference to IATA.
The second objection which was taken was with respect to the inclusion in Bill C-117 of the right of Canada to make charges for the use of facilities outside Canada, and I would point out to the minister that a strong case was made from this side of the house on that feature in addition to the representations on behalf of international air lines.
This very objectionable feature has also been removed from the bill, although it is not yet clear so far as the new bill, C-153, is concerned whether Canada will have the right to impose the intended charges in the Gander control area, which is Canada's responsibility with respect to international air commitments but still lies outside of Canada's sovereignty. The minister knows that we maintain facilities in the Gander control area which lie outside Canadian jurisdiction and I ask him, is it the intention of the government to impose charges with respect to these facilities? That is a question that requires to be answered.
The minister has stated that the proposed amendments do not make any change in the system of charges now imposed under the Financial Administration Act. I recall that during the debate on the previous bill, and since then during discussion of the estimates
March 31, 1966

of the Department of Transport, I asked several questions which went unanswered with respect to the charges that had been made in the past under the Financial Administration Act and which I assume the Department of Justice finally recognized were illegal charges.
As the minister knows, there were accounts rendered to several international air lines. I asked how the government arrived at the amounts upon which these accounts were rendered and whether it had to ask the accountants' offices of the international air lines concerned before it even knew the amount of the bill to be rendered.
The minister has said with respect to charges imposed for the use and the availability of facilities and services offered by the Department of Transport that there should be, and there was, justification for a specific charge against users and that this was the principle upon which the bill was proceeding. This, I suggest to the minister, is a wrong principle. I suggest there is no fundamental difference between the obligation on the Canadian taxpayer to supply facilities for the users of our air highways and the obligation to provide highways on the ground for those who drive automobiles. The introduction of the principle of making charges for these facilities is, I think, a wrong one. Perhaps I may be standing alone in that view. I have a somewhat closer interest than most. Incidentally, I might assure the minister that my recent arrears in landing fees have been brought up to date. I might, however, draw that analogy to the minister's attention and ask him what other countries which are signatories to the International Civil Aviation Agreement have imposed such charges? I think this question has to be answered.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is another objectionable feature which I will point out now and then wait for the minister's reply before proceeding further with it. It appears in the bill and is the principle contained in subsection 2 of the new section 3A. This subsection reads:
Any regulations made under subsection (1) may authorize the minister to make orders or directions with respect to such matters coming within this section as the regulations may prescribe.
In Bill C-117 you will find that the power to make regulations was confined to the Governor in Council. I am one of those who take strong objection to any increasing encroachment on legislative powers by the Governor in Council. However, I think this is
Aeronautics Act
taking matters to the extreme in that not only has the Governor in Council the power to make regulations but the Governor in Council now has the power simply to pass one regulation which in effect will say that the minister will have all the powers of regulating which by this amending section he is purported to be given.
It is wrong in principle to allow the minister to do everything in the way of making regulations that this section would empower him to do. I think that is an objectionable feature and it should be removed from the bill. For the minister's information, the provision to which I referred, subsection 2, was not in the last bill, Bill C-117.
I have some general comments to make. Section 3A, as you will note, is divided into two subsections, the first subsection being again subdivided. I do not think any objection can be raised to the parliamentary intent set forth in paragraph (a) (i). The government is being empowered by this paragraph to prescribe charges or fees for services rendered by the Department of Transport to aircraft which in effect request the information or the service which is provided. This type of charge would be based in law on the principle of contract, since the aircraft has requested the information which is being supplied to it or the service that is being rendered.
Similarly, under the same subsection charges will be imposed, as the minister has pointed out, for the use by any aircraft of airports maintained by the Department of Transport. During his introductory remarks the minister mentioned that it was desirable to see airports administered by the Department of Transport self-supporting. I am wondering and I have wondered, since I have travelled long distances frequently and used the Department of Transport facilities, whether there is any great contribution being made to the federal treasury by these ten cent turnstiles which permit travellers to view the activities on the airports across the country. An even more pertinent observation can be made with regard to the obligation of the travelling public in the use of the public washrooms maintained by the Department of Transport. I can see perhaps a scintilla of argument here in respect of men's washrooms, but I am afraid I cannot draw a parallel as to the need in respect of the functioning of women's washrooms. It would be interesting to know just what the revenue is from these ten cent contributions at airports across the country.

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
Here again, in respect of the use of the airports maintained by the Department of Transport I would suggest to the minister that the charge is based on the law of contract and therefore is subject to one reservation. No objection can be taken to the intent expressed in subsection 1. The charges levied under subsection 1 will apply to both Canadian and international or foreign aircraft. My reservation, however, relates to the value of the wording used in subsection 1, and it arises from the fact that parliament would not be imposing a specific charge for any services rendered, nor is there any maximum charge limit with regard to the provisions.
I am going to refer to the Chicago convention of 1944 to which Canada was a signatory and in which it was stated that when imposing charges against aircraft there cannot be discrimination between Canadian registered and foreign aircraft. I suggest to the minister that that discrimination exists here.
You will find in article 15 of that convention, page 37, the following wording in respect of the imposition of these charges:
Any charges that may be imposed or permitted to be imposed by a contracting state-
And Canada is one.
-for the use of such airports and air navigation facilities by the aircraft of any other contracting state shall not be higher . . .
(b) as to aircraft engaged in scheduled international air services, than those that would be paid by its national aircraft engaged in similar international air services.
At the same time, under the Air Canada Act the Department of Transport is prohibited from charging Air Canada aircraft for such services at rates that are higher than those levied against competitive aircraft by the United States government. This statutory restrictive provision has existed since the inception of this particular statute in 1937, and was commented on in the recent report of the royal commission on government organization, the Glassco report, volume 3.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There is a further authoritative study of Air Canada which refers to the same restrictive provisions. It is entitled "The First Twenty-Five Years-A Study of Trans-Canada Air Lines", as it was known, by Mr. Ashley, published in 1963. At pages 5 and 6 of this study the author has summarized the main provisions of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act by quoting extensively from the first annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines. This point

was dealt with in that report in exactly the same way and I want to quote what he said:
The government is responsible for the operation and maintenance of emergency landing fields, lights and radio beams, and the furnishing of weather reports, without charge to the corporation; provided that when the revenues of the corporation in the opinion of the minister will permit, charges may be imposed such as are charged for other similar competing coast to coast services in North America.
Professor A. W. Currie, one of Canada's foremost authorities on the economics of transportation, wrote a very learned article entitled "Some Economic Aspects Of Air Transport" in 1941. He commented in that report about the same limiting factor, and these are his words:
The government is to provide landing facilities, beam and meteorological services without charge until the revenues of the corporation permit a charge, not exceeding charges levied in the United States to be made ... A perusal of the main features of the act indicates clearly that Trans-Canada is to be operated with constant reference to United States lines.
I take that quotation from the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 1941, No. 1, page 13, at line 20.
This limiting factor against the imposition of charges by the Department of Transport for services provided still exists in the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. If the minister has followed this argument, the nub of the point is, therefore, that under subsection 1 of section 3A, as worded in Bill C-153, parliament has no control over whether the charges imposed by the Department of Transport are within the limitation as to amount required under the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act. This is an important point since it is generally considered that to date the scale of charges imposed by the United States government for similar services is quite low.
Subject to this one reservation relating to subsection (1), the objections of the international air lines, as I understand them, concern the wording of what is now subsection (2) of section 1. It is submitted that this subsection in its present form is far too wide and far too arbitary in character.
I will now relate the particular objections to subsection (2). The criterion, and here is where I differ with the minister, with respect to the use of the word "availability" in this legislation has been established that the basis in law for these charges is the availability of a government service. It is submitted that this is much too vague and is therefore wrong in principle. This is all the more so since this
March 31. 1966

subsection at one time attempted to make foreign air lines liable to user charges while they were flying beyond the territorial limits of Canada. This feature has now been removed.


John Napier Turner: With respect, Mr. Speaker, it does not apply to flights beyond the territorial limits of Canada. It only applies to flights within Canada, not on the high seas.


Erik Nielsen: As I read the legislation it does not make it clear that international carriers would not be responsible for paying charges for the use of facilities when flying over Canada because, as I understand it, Canada has territorial jurisdiction from the ground up in law.
There is an even more fundamental objection to the principle upon which this subsection is based, and that objection springs from the ordinary canons of tax law. This is a field in which the minister has more experience than most having regard to his background in the profession. I think he will agree with me that under ordinary canons of taxation a tax must be certain and must be equitable.


John Napier Turner: This is not a tax; it is a charge.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says this is not a tax but it is a form of a tax. This is the imposition of charges for the use of facilities.


John Napier Turner: It is a charge for services rendered.


Erik Nielsen: It is a charge particularly for the use of radio facilities on the basis of availability, and it is only that point I am dealing with now. I am not dealing with the availability of airports or charges for the rental of space, buildings or hangars at airports. I am only dealing with the availability of services which may or may not be used by any aircraft using Canada's air space and which are simply there by virtue of the fact that they permeate the very atmosphere.
I do not think it can be said that a tax in the form of a user charge is certain if liability is based upon the vague criterion of the availability of some government service. Who is going to determine in a given instance whether a service is available? I direct this question to the minister. The minister knows as well as I that a service, particularly those provided in the field of electronics by way of navigational aids to aircraft using Canadian air space, may or may not be available at any given time. How are you going to establish
Aeronautics Act
whether it is available at a given time? Even if it can be ascertained that a service is available, why should a charge be imposed if the user has no need of it? Is it the intention of the minister to make a regulation imposing a standard charge on all aircraft using Canadian air space simply because a service is available and whether or not the aircraft using that air space wants to use the facility? It seems to me that that would be wrong in principle.
I believe this is particularly so since the Department of Transport has attempted to impose such user charges under the Financial Administration Act because they did not have any specific legislation before under which they could impose these charges. They tried to use the vehicle of the Financial Administration Act for that imposition of charges, which was an illegal use of that act. They called them radio facility fees and charged $64 a flight as far back as January of 1960. These charges were levied against flights of international air lines which at all times were well beyond the territorial jurisdiction of Canada.
Such radio facility fees were based on the criterion of availability and that criterion has been carried over into this bill. As examples, one can cite the Pan-American flight from New York to Bermuda, the S.A.S. polar flights from Europe to Alaska and Japan passing over the Russian side of the north pole and the Swissair flights from Switzerland to New York, diverted toward the Canadian coast because of the holding of military air exercises. This is another interesting consideration in respect of the imposition of these charges. What about the flight from Toronto to Chicago partly using Canadian air space and partly using United States air space?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I understand that the United States has not imposed any similar charges for the use of facilities provided over their country. What happens in this instance with respect to the international carrier on the one hand and the domestic carrier on the other? I could in this respect mention the newly inaugurated flight from Montreal to Chicago.


John Napier Turner: It does not apply to this kind of flight. It applies to flights over Canada.


Erik Nielsen: The minister says it does not apply to this kind of flight. This is the kind of thing that has to be made clear. The

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
minister will recall that when the 1963 session was prorogued the announcement was made that a Canada-United States agreement had been concluded for the purpose of providing greater safety at times of peak air traffic. Under the agreement that was concluded it was stated that air traffic control centres in either country would be extended to 50 miles beyond the border of the country concerned whenever conditions warranted.
I suggest to the minister that at such times it would be possible for Canadian authorities exercising air traffic control, which Canada would, in that 50-mile strip south of the United States border to route all United States air traffic within the 50-mile limit inside the Canadian border. The minister shakes his head, but it is possible under that agreement. The minister knows that when aircraft are using Canadian air space they are under the control of air traffic control and do what they are told. As a safety measure this seems perfectly acceptable and indeed desirable; nevertheless it does throw that possibility into the field of discussion of this bill.
It is my submission that the international air lines recognize that the services Canada provides cost money. These services cost a national government money and must be paid for as far as possible. At the same time, the cost of such services to each international air line must have some direct bearing on the value of the service to the aircraft in question. This result cannot be achieved if the availability of a service is the only test whether there will be a liability. Perhaps a better, fairer and more appropriate criterion for determining liability would be need of a service by a foreign aircraft resulting from a contract.
If this cannot be achieved with efficiency perhaps the better alternative would be to come to an international arrangement under the auspices of ICAO. Perhaps that would be the better solution. The minister might inform the house whether the provisions in this bill have been discussed with any international air organization such as ICAO, IATA or any other.
There was an objection with regard to clause 2 of this bill when it appeared in the form of clause 2 of Bill No. C-117 and empowered the governor in council to make regulations. The clause in Bill No. C-117 stated that the Governor in Council could, if it so desired, make regulations imposing a user charge upon foreign aircraft. Undoubtedly it would have to be admitted that such a

user charge would represent a form of tax imposed against the owner of the said aircraft. As clause 2 was drafted, parliament had delegated the right to impose a specific tax of this kind to the Governor in Council. It is even worse now, because the delegation by parliament has gone beyond the Governor in Council and that power has been delegated to the minister himself.
I believe this is an infringement on the taxation jurisdiction which parliament should not be asked to accept unless it is the intention to spell out in the bill itself the limitation intended to apply to such a tax. The minister says it is not a tax, but it is a form of tax particularly when it has reference not to the rental of buildings but to the use of facilities. It would be different if there were a contractual relationship whereby foreign or domestic carriers had agreed that they would pay a specified sum over a specified time for the use of a specified facility, but when the criterion is based on the general availability of any service it is no longer based on contract but is in the form of a tax. There is quite a distinction, which I do not believe the minister will accept, but I am not merely splitting hairs here. There is a very valid distinction between the imposition of a charge for the general availability of services and the charging of rent for the use of specific property. So I suggest that this principle in the bill is objectionable.
I shall leave the remaining clauses of the bill until we reach them, because I have specific comments with respect to other clauses. Before concluding my remarks, however, I make the general observation to the minister that the government these days appears to be-I say this with all respect to the dedication of the officials of the Department of Transport with respect to the direction they are taking and the objectives they wish to achieve-overwhelmingly concerned, almost to the exclusion of general aviation, with commercial aviation in this country. There is really an overabundant concern with commercial aviation and almost a neglect to foster and encourage the growth of general aviation in this country, particularly with regard to the north. In the north private companies and individuals have gone to the extent of establishing radio facilities at their own expense because it was said there was no need for such facilities or they were too costly. There are two instances in the Northwest Territories where this has occurred and private companies at their own
March 31, 1966

Aeronautics Act
expense have established facilities so they would not have to fly long hauls of 500 and 600 miles with nothing whatsoever to aid them in navigating from point to point.
It would be outside the scope of this bill but I could discuss a good many gaps in the encouragement of general aviation in the north. I shall not do so. But it is certainly reasonable to expect the department to look a little more enlighteningly at the question of general aviation across the country and the atrocious charges that are made in the way of landing fees and hangar rentals. Here I perhaps have another vested interest, but I am not going to bring the matter to the point of a vote or anything like that. However, it is pertinent to point out that the charge of $17 a month for parking a light aircraft outside in the winter is just outlandish. To move that light aircraft into an unheated hangar costs the user on the average between $50 and $60 a month. That is the charge just to use hangar space which is not even heated. This is absolutely ridiculous. You are not going to encourage people to own and fly aircraft, which I suggest is a desirable thing in this country, a pioneer in the aviation field, with this kind of approach. I believe it is time that the personnel in the department took a second look at this question. We all know that these bills are not the brainchild of the minister, whoever may be holding the transport portfolio. These bills are the brainchild of the Department of Transport itself.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
So, Mr. Speaker, through the minister I should like to make this plea on behalf of general aviation in Canada because the bill does touch on charges to the user of facilities and services provided by the Department of Transport. I am not going to propose any amendments at this stage; I cannot in any event. But I would suggest to the minister that one which should be made is that the word "availability" in the proposed section 3A (1) (b) should be deleted and that the word "user" should be substituted in place thereof.


Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, in opening the discussion on second reading the minister mentioned the fact that many of the regulations under debate relate specifically to safety. In my brief remarks this afternoon I want to address my words to the question of safety regulations.


John Napier Turner: Safety in the air.


William Heward Grafftey: Safety in the air. While I think that most aeronautical experts will agree that the situation is not perfect at the present time and that there is much progress to be made, I think most Canadians and most citizens of the United States of America owe a great vote of gratitude to the air industry with respect to safety measures. The record of the air industry in relation to safety has been truly little short of magnificent, even though I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, that there is much progress which can be made.
For example, what has happened in the United States during the year 1965? If I put some statistics before the house this afternoon we need only divide them by ten to ascertain the situation in Canada. While 55,000 people died on the highways of the United States in 1965 only 1,000 people died during the course of commercial airline flights. I think I am correct in stating that actually more millions of man miles were flown in the air than millions of man miles were driven on the highways. If we divide those figures by ten, then generally speaking we have the Canadian situation.
Why is it, Mr. Speaker, that this afternoon the minister is able to discuss in the house some pretty sophisticated safety regulations both with regard to navigation-


John Napier Turner: It is a question of jurisdiction. We have primary jurisdiction.


Mr. Graff  ley:@: Yes, that is right. That is a good point and I was going to get down to it. I am putting the question rhetorically, as the minister will see.
Why is it that we can discuss sophisticated regulations at the present time? Why do we have very good safety regulations for aircraft today? It is simply because millions and millions and millions of dollars have been spent on safety research regarding air navigation and aircraft. In fact, the department for which the minister is speaking this afternoon very kindly furnished me with a memorandum in the last week or two which sets out the federal control over the production of ships, aircraft and rolling stock on the railways with specific relation to safety measures.
We find in the Aeronautics Act-frankly, Mr. Speaker, I may be getting away from the specific act now but the minister can put me straight-which is administered by the Department of Transport that aircraft are licensed only if they reach certain standards of

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
airworthiness and safety. The same is true of trains and ships.
I should like to make brief mention of another subject though still staying on the point I have raised on second reading of this bill. Let us just see what happened regarding the unfortunate air crash at Ste. Therese just over two years ago. I have made brief mention of this matter before in the house. Over 100 people were killed in that unfortunate crash. The federal government through the Department of Transport commenced to reassemble the aircraft at the scene of the accident piece by piece. The operation was continued at Dorval airport. A judicial inquiry was held. I have made some very general investigations, Mr. Speaker, but I think I am correct in saying that when you look at the costs incurred by the National Research Council and the Department of Transport you will find approximately $5 million was spent on research into the cause of this accident.
I do not think I will be out of order if I say in passing that every week in Canada over 100 people die on our highways. After the ambulance or morgue wagon has removed the bodies the wrecks are towed away. But not one single cent is spent on research into the cause of highway deaths and injuries.
In closing may I say that we owe a great debt of thanks to government officials and to the aircraft industry for the wonderful safety record they have had up to now. Though I have said that we can expect much progress in the future, the fact is that they have a great safety record. But it is only great because of the millions and millions of dollars which have been spent on research, thus enabling the minister to talk of safety regulations in the manner he has this afternoon.
It has been pointed out this afternoon that aircraft come under the rule of law. We shall probably be discussing during this session the fact that ships are under the rule of law just as in a matter of weeks we will be discussing the fact that rolling stock on our railways are under the rule of law. It is my hope that the day is not too far distant when millions and millions of dollars will be spent on research into deaths and injuries caused by highway accidents. I hope that in the same way as we are discussing safety in relation to aircraft we will be discussing safety regulations relating to federal control over the production of automobiles and obligation upon manufacturers to incorporate scientifically proven safety features in automobiles at the production level.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we cannot do this today because we have not established jurisdiction. We have not even prepared any findings in this regard because nothing has yet been spent on research into the problem. Again I return to the fact, which I have probably repeated two or three times this afternoon, that we are only able to enter into a discussion of safety with the minister today on second reading of this bill because over many years we have acted federally in a positive way in regard to this matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to keep the house from hearing the minister but there are one or two observations I intended to make. While realizing that we do not discuss the various sections, on second reading nonetheless I feel that during the course of my remarks I must make reference to a couple of matters that were dealt with by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I express the hope that the minister will have been impressed with these arguments and will make the necessary changes to meet the criticisms advanced by the hon. member for Yukon.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I must say that I am impressed with some portions of these amendments, particularly those that deal with the establishment of a board of inquiry to investigate the situation respecting any accident involving an aircraft. While in the past there have been investigations, the lack of power in the holding of an investigation was apparent on more than one occasion, and I think this new provision is an admirable advance. However, there is one section to which I take the strongest possible objection. We must not as a parliament advance the rights of ministers to the point of actually making laws. That is what we are doing in this case. The Governor in Council, of course, must have the power to make regulations. This is incidental to the exercise of the necessary authority to carry out the general principle inherent in the legislation, and it is always so. But I cannot conceive what reason impels the government to ask for the power that any regulations made may authorize the minister to make orders or directions with respect to such matters coming within this section as the regulations may prescribe.
This is a power that is not needed. We have dealt with this point on more than one occasion. We must resist the continuing invasion of the legislative rights of parliament by
March 31. 1966

an administrative bureaucracy that finds it easier to make regulations than to provide legislation to cover eventualities that must necessarily arise in the carrying out of legislation. I impress on the minister, and I do not want to see a division on this, that this is a subsection which ought to be removed.
One could go back over the years and read all the various criticisms which have been made of the continuing advance of those who establish a form of administrative lawlessness whereby parliament in the exercise of the need of assuring that legislation will be carried out in detail grants extraordinary rights to the Governor in Council to make regulations. There is no reason why the minister should have the right to make regulations. The Governor in Council must necessarily have that right; otherwise the act could not be made effective. I object in the strongest possible way to parliament giving to a minister the right to make orders with respect to matters that come within the purview of the Governor in Council's power.
This is something that has been strongly objected to by political scientists everywhere. My mind goes back to the first serious attack made by one occupying a high position in the United Kingdom. Lord Justice Hewart, in his book "The New Despotism", with which members of the house are fully acquainted with, in which he points out the danger.
I am not one who takes objection to the Governor in Council having the power provided parliament has given that power. But I do object to and can see no reason for the Governor in Council in turn giving to the minister the right to make regulations. This is a denial of the general principle of law, Delegatus non potest delegare-authority to delegate is not given to those who are delegated.
Listening to the arguments advanced I have been impressed with the lack of requisite need for the minister to have that power, and I am going to appeal to him in this regard. If he would sooner have a vote on this matter, that is for him to say. But I do take the strongest possible objection, not because I have any minister in mind, not at all -what I say is not said in that spirit-to this shortcut that will enable the Governor in Council to sublet the right to make regulations to the minister.


Erik Nielsen: In a taxing bill it is even worse.
Aeronautics Act


John George Diefenbaker: I have not looked into the nature of the powers sought in this regard, but the hon. member for Yukon has raised a strong argument that this would enable the minister to impose in fact an impost which has all the attributes of taxation. Whether or not that be so, and I must say that I was impressed with the argument, I would ask the minister this question. Why do you need that power? This is an extra, decorative acquisition of power on the part of the minister which he ought not to have.
I do not want to appear as objecting to needful authority being given to make regulations. But this goes too far. I hope that the minister will feel constrained to look into this. It is not needed. The Governor in Council can give this authority. Why then must it rest in the minister?
I can place a great deal more trust in the passage of Orders in Council that have the authority of the Governor in Council than I can in having the authority vested in the minister. That is the situation in the United Kingdom. Over there they have taken the strongest possible objection to this sort of thing. The parliament of the United Kingdom has existed for a long time. It has taken the strongest possible objection to the invasions in these areas of power that have taken place under successive governments by the bureaucracy which likes shortcuts in the interests of efficiency and immediate effectiveness.
It would not take the minister long to place the matter I have suggested before the Governor in Council. It might be that those who have not sat in cabinet might consider that such a course would take a long time. As a matter of fact, it does not take any time at all. One accepts in cabinet the recommendations of the minister regarding the Orders in Council that are necessary. That is his responsibility to the whole field of cabinet authority and it makes possible the acceptance of his recommendations. That is so unless in fact there is something so extraordinary in what the minister recommends as to shock the collective conscience of the executive.
I suggest to the minister, and I say this in a spirit of co-operation and desiring to assure that we shall not take these preliminary steps to get away from the Governor in Council, that we should not give the minister the authority to be a lawmaker. If parliament once embodies such authority in one case the pathway of today can become the highway of

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
tomorrow. We would create a dangerous precedent. I am sure the minister will give every consideration to this suggestion. It in no way weakens the amendments but it does maintain the strength of the parliamentary system in the exercise of the authority to make regulations.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I turn to one other matter, the proposed increase in the number of members of the Air Transport Board. From my own experience I am inclined to agree that an increase is necessary. The Air Transport Board has a tremendous field of responsibility and the various areas of Canada each have their own needs and requirements. There are, I think, four or five such areas across this nation, each having a different set of problems, and I think an increase in the size of the board is a step in the right deirection.
However, I have known in the past-the minister shakes his head. He already knows what I am going to bring up. It shows he has the power of apperception even before communication is made-


An hon. Member:: Extrasensory perception.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, in a philosophic sense I suppose we call it extrasensory perception. It is very valuable. But it has been known upon occasion that when boards are increased in numbers those who had occupied positions thereon lose their appointments. I am sure the minister does not have this in mind. There are three members on the Air Transport Board today in respect of whom I should like to have the hon. gentleman's assurance that not only will they be entitled to reappointment, as stated in the bill, but that they will be reappointed and that this proposal in no way constitutes a form of circumlocution whose purpose is to bring about the removal of any member of this board.
The views I have expressed are placed before the house in the most co-operative spirit. I think they are reasonable and fair and they are based upon the experience which was mine when I headed a government. I believe them to be valid in the national interest and I hope the minister will give consideration to them.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a matter which concerns the safety and the comfort of air passengers. Today, more and more of our older people are flying. Also, included among 
the younger people who fly are a great many who suffer from coronary weaknesses and other chronic diseases. They, like other passengers, are often obliged to walk long distances and climb flights of stairs before boarding or after leaving their planes. I have noticed that sometimes they have to stop to take medication to help them on their way. I think we should provide, in close proximity to the airfield itself, sheltered places-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt
the hon. member when he is discussing a matter of such importance but I must remind him that our discussion now should be limited as far as possible to the principles of this bill to amend the Aeronautics Act. I have glanced rapidly at the measure before us and I see no reference in it at all to what the hon. member for Simcoe East is now saying.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will rapidly draw my remarks to a conclusion. Before you assumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, hon. members were talking about safety. I am concerned about the safety of the passengers who use these planes. Though many of these men and women are quite able to carry on their affairs in a normal way, unusual exertion could be dangerous to them and I should like to ask the minister whether he will undertake to do something to reduce the distances which must be walked at our airports and thus make things easier for the people to whom I have referred.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to deal with two points raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. gentleman took exception-and I can understand his doing so-to the terms of clause 1 of the amendment relating to the new section 3A(2). This type of delegation of powers already exists in the Aeronautics Act. Section 4(2) of the present act reads as follows:
Any regulation made under subsection (1) may authorize the minister to make orders or directions with respect to such matters coming within this section as the regulations may prescribe.
In other words, this is a power within the scope of the present act which authorizes the Governor in Council to make a regulation giving power to the minister to make orders or give directions. I use those two words advisedly. He is not given power to make
March 31. 1966

new regulations but to make orders or directions with respect to such matters as come within the section.
This section has come into play in a number of emergency situations. For instance, section 4(l)(a) of the present act refers to regulations governing the licensing of pilots and others engaged in the navigation of aircraft and provides for the suspension or revocation of such licences. I am sure hon. members can readily contemplate that in certain circumstances quick action is needed and that the minister should have authority under the regulations to make an order or direction for the suspension or revocation of a licence.


Erik Nielsen: Would the minister not agree that this is a vastly different situation from the kind of power which is being sought in the amendment in the bill before us?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Yes it is, but I want to explain to hon. members how it was that this particular clause was inserted in the amendments. I should imagine it was inserted there on the advice of the law officers of the Crown in furtherance of the existing section in the statute. In other words, it is not a novel situation to have a form of subdelegation within the Aeronautics Act. I will get to the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon in just a moment.
Section 4(l)(d) of the present statute concerns regulations with respect to the conditions under which aircraft may be used and operated, and again I think hon. members would recognize that the minister must have immediate power to make orders or give directions affecting that sort of matter. Within the amendment as proposed the subclause, with respect, does not confer upon the minister the subdelegated power to make regulations but only to make orders or give directions. In other words, the subdelegation is narrower than envisaged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). However, having consulted with the officials of the department I am advised that they can live with the elimination of this particular subclause.
As a matter of fact, I may advise the house that when we get into committee on this particular subclause we would be prepared to have it dropped, and I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Yukon for drawing it to the attention of the house. I do not think that within its
Aeronautics Act
scope it is nearly as dangerous as the hon. member for Yukon wished to portray it, but I do recognize the principle involved.
I should now like to go into the other matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. As a matter of courtesy to him may I say that his fears, of which I had a certain extrasensory perception, are in no way justified. I am advised that the clause does not invalidate the terms of the present three members. In passing may I say that someone in the chamber asked me who the members of the Air Transport Board are. They are J. L. G. Morisset, chairman, J. R. Belcher and G. R. Boucher, Q.C. I am sure I can give the undertaking that their appointments will in no way be affected by this amendment.
The hon. member for Yukon mentioned a number of arguments which, with the consent of the house, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with in turn. I am well aware of the hon. member's own prowess and experience in the air, having flown with him on many occasions throughout his own constituency, and if that is not a pioneering spirit I want to know what is, Mr. Speaker. It was one of the most adventurous tours I ever made while serving as a member of this house and I pay full tribute to his skill at the controls.
The bill refers to flights within Canada. It does not contemplate jurisdiction for charges for availability of services over the high seas. Therefore it is my understanding that the Gander control area would not be affected. But lest I misled the house by inadvertence in my initial statement may I say it would include that part of an international flight over Canadian territory.
The hon. member for Yukon suggested that because we are now incorporating these charges under the authority of the Aeronautics Act their legality was in some doubt or subject to question while depending on the authority of the Financial Administration Act. Let me read section 18 of that act:
Where a service is provided by Her Majesty to any person and the Governor in Council is of opinion that the whole or part of the cost of the service should be borne by the person to whom it is provided, the Governor in Council may, subject to the provisions of any act relating to that service, by regulation prescribe the fee that may be charged for the service.
Therefore we can justify landing fees, telecommunications fees, hangar storage charges, aircraft parking charges, goods storage charges and aircraft moving charges. The

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
present bill to amend the Aeronautics Act would authorize all oi these charges to be assigned pursuant to the Aeronautics Act.
The hon. member's point was whether the Financial Administration Act constituted authority for charges for the availability of services. Without entering into a legal interpretation let me just say in reply to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that the present amendment would remove any doubt that there might have been as to the justification for this.


Erik Nielsen: At this point may I ask the minister if there are any actions still pending over the right of the government to collect the charges levied under section 18 of the Financial Administration Act?


John Napier Turner: I cannot give an ansv/er to that question. I merely cite the principle that no act is retroactive under common law and no matter what this bill achieves it will not affect retroactively the validity of any charge made previously.


Erik Nielsen: The charges were not paid before and actions were brought, as the minister knows.


John Napier Turner: Well, if the charge was invalid then it will not be validated by this particular amendment. I was asked how the charges are calculated. I am sure the hon. member for Yukon is aware of the manual information circular as to the present fees and charges and I would assume that the method of calculation would remain the same under this amendment.


Erik Nielsen: No. That document does not cover the point of availability of electronic navigable aids and the charges made therefor.


John Napier Turner: Now we are talking about the availability charges, and I will deal with that in due course.


Erik Nielsen: I might say I do not agree with the charge.


John Napier Turner: I would now like to deal briefly with the philosophical argument introduced by the hon. member for Yukon that because the highways are free to the users thereof, subject to licence charges and gasoline tax, then the use of facilities available to non-commercial pilots should involve the same rights and privileges. I quite realize that he would not object to hangar charges or to the gasoline tax.


Erik Nielsen: Just the amount.


John Napier Turner: He says merely the amount, but then we all have that particular problem. Let me say that much as I want to encourage an increase in the flying business and the pursuit of flying in this country, I do not think the day has yet arrived where the number of pilots and private planes involved justifies the self-supporting, no-charge treatment that the millions of users of our highways now enjoy.
I am sure that day will come. I look forward to the encouragement of the opening up of this country by way of commercial and non-commercial private air travel as much as does the hon. member. Let me say too that what we are talking about, within the present regulations in any event, is somewhat narrower than would appear at first blush because, for example, under the present regulations no fee or charge is payable in respect of a landing at an airport, other than Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, of an aircraft not based at the airport which is owned and operated by a flying club or an aircraft over 5,000 lbs, not based at the airport, and owned and based at a flying school. The fourth exemption is a private aircraft not weighing over 5,000 lbs. Therefore the extent of these fees and charges is not as wide as the hon. member would have us believe.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Erik Nielsen: I know the minister would wish me to point out that this is a recent change and that these charges at other airports are now included in the gasoline taxes. They were imposed at most of the Department of Transport airports.


John Napier Turner: I will interpret that as a rhetorical question, Mr. Speaker. Let me say also that the department is in constant touch and negotiation with the various private flying associations, and I would hope they would continue to do so in order that the objectives sought by the hon. member will be achieved and eventually there will be no distinction between commercial and non-commercial use of our airways and landing facilities. I would contemplate this over the years.
Let me say also that I am advised in respect of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act that these charges contemplated and already imposed under that act in no way are higher than they are in the United States. I would point out to the hon. member that there is no
March 31, 1966

single United States level because their airports vary under municipal control. The additional federal levies, such as the transportation tax and many other United States charges, are much higher than ours and they have types of charges which we do not have. On the other hand, other United States charges I do concede are lower.
Turning now to the substance of the hon. member's argument about charges for the availability of services, let me say first of all that these charges do not constitute a tax. A charge for a service rendered or a service which may be rendered is not the imposition of a tax so far as I am concerned under any definition of the common or statute law. What we contemplate here by available services are such things as weather information, use of radio ranges, beacons, other navigational items and the electronic aids with which I know the hon. member is familiar.
I should like to submit to the house that there is no contractual relationship here. These services are held available for the safety of our air lines. I was glad to see the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) stress that aspect of these regulations. They are understandable services in the case of need. They may be voluntarily required. They may be required under times of stress or for the furnishing of needed information.
Let me put this to the hon. member. These charges are no different in effect from the pilotage charge imposed upon an owner or master of a vessel coming up a ship channel where the pilotage charge is compulsory. For the use of the owner, and in the interest of safety, we impose upon the owner and master of a vessel the obligation to take a pilot aboard. Let me say also to the hon. member, who shares the same profession I do, that it is quite customary for lawyers or other consultants to operate on retaining fees, the basis of the retainer being that the lawyer, accountant or management consultant should be available in terms of service no matter whether he actually renders a service during any calendar year. I know that the retainer fee is a contemplated and quite usual form of professional conduct and in no way could be considered as a tax by the person who is rendering or who is available to render the service.
I wish to say to the hon. member that the concept of these charges for facilities available for flights within Canada has been discussed with the international air lines. In my
Aeronautics Act
earlier statement I mentioned that the International Air Transport Association had been consulted. It also was a subject of consultation with all or most international air lines both through meetings and by letter. The air lines did not object to the principle of availability once the departmental officials had limited it to Canadian air space only. All they objected to before as I am sure the hon. member knows, was the extraterritorial implication in the earlier bill. They asked the assurance of the Department of Transport that the charges would be reasonable in relation to the cost of providing these services. The department gave the international air lines the assurance that they would be consulted before the department passed regulations in respect of any charge of this particular type. I am led to believe, Mr. Speaker, that they have accepted this undertaking on behalf of the departmental officials. I feel I have covered all the points raised by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Perhaps he can correct me when we get to the particular clauses. In closing may I say that I sympathize very much with the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) because we in Montreal particularly have a walk of at least a quarter of a mile from some of the international flights to the main body of the airport. I certainly will draw this matter to the attention of the officials, many of whom are sitting in the official gallery.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-Regulations.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, in accordance with my undertaking I recommend to the committee that clause 1 be amended by the deletion of subsection 2 of the new section 3A.


Mr. McCleave:: May I ask the minister whether subsection 1 would not go as well since there are only two paragraphs in 3A?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: I do not follow that.


Erik Nielsen: I believe what the hon. member for Halifax meant to say was that you would have to refer to the wording of the previous bill, C-117, and section 3A would be divided only into two basic subsections. We have in the present bill subparagraphs (i) and (ii). You are now deleting subsection 2 of the

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
proposed new act so that (a) would become 1 and (b) would become 2.


John Napier Turner: I am sure the numbering will take care of itself. The only deletion is in respect of the present subsection 2 of the new section.


The Deputy Chairman:: Hon. members have heard the proposed amendment. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt, the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I raised one other point having regard to availability. The minister dealt quite adequately with facilities and services provided but he has not satisfied me regarding the levy of a charge for availability of facilities. He drew the example of retainers in the professional field as an analogy but I suggest there is no analogy there. Even if there were, in that case there is a service being offered to the one who pays the retainer, that service being the agreement of the one retained not to act against the one who pays the retainer.
As another example the minister used the field of pilotage regarding ships using our navigable waters. In my submission this also is not a good analogy because as he knows these pilotage fees are only payable when the ships are in fact using the pilotage services or when they are compelled to use them. In this case you are dealing with facilities which no one is compelled to use. These electronic navigational aids are available to the general air space users without compulsion.
During the second reading stage I posed a specific question which the minister might answer. Does any other country which is a signatory to the international air agreement make any charges for the availability of electronic navigational facilities? I hope Canada is not seeking to establish a precedent in this field because the international agreement itself covers this very point.
As I pointed out before, Canada is a signatory to the international air agreement which at page 29 sets forth the following:
Each member state undertakes, so far as it may find practicable, to make available such radio facilities. such meteorological services, and such other air navigation facilities as may from time to time be required for the operation of safe and efficient scheduled international air services under the provisions of this agreement.
There is in any event an obligation upon Canada to provide the kind of facilities in respect of which it is being sought to levy a

charge because of the mere availability of them.
The minister made a further point regarding my analogy in connection with highways to the effect that we have not yet reached the position where, because of the number of aircraft and users of these facilities, we can afford to pay the cost of erecting and maintaining them. May I point out to the minister that before this bill was proposed no such charges were made for electronic navigational aids in Canada. We are now breaking entirely new ground.


John Napier Turner: The industry is moving forward,


Erik Nielsen: As I have pointed out, Canada has been a pioneer in the promotion of the growth of aviation.


John Napier Turner: Perhaps this is a pioneering change.


Erik Nielsen: We do not want to stifle that growth by the imposition of an unacceptable precedent. I believe there are valid analogies, which the minister tried to draw but failed, on the other side of the coin and I want to point out one or two.
A good example of parliament's attitude toward the kind of tax I suggest this is is demonstrated by the export duty on electricity which was imposed until the 1963 federal budget which time it was repealed. For many years the authority to levy an export duty on electricity was established under the Exportation of Electricity and Fluids Act and later the Exportation of Power and Fluids and Importation of Gas Act. Under both those statutes it was enacted that the Governor in Council could make regulations imposing export duties not exceeding $10 per horsepower per annum on power exported from Canada.
At this point it will be observed that in each of those two power statutes there was a delegation from parliament to the executive of the right to impose a tax but with the notable exception that in these power statutes, and this was the point I was trying to get across during second reading, a maximum tax was established by parliament. That is not the case in respect of this proposal. In this case no maximum rate is established anywhere in the bill. Even in the provisions of the Financial Administration Act, as the minister well knows, there was a maximum rate of $64 established. Here there is no such expression of limitation.
March 31, 1966

As recently as 1959 the government of that day decided as a matter of policy that the discretionary authority given to the executive to establish and export duty on power, within a statutory maximum, should be removed and the entire right restored to parliament. This was achieved by placing this power tax under the Excise Tax Act where it is today in section 8. The exact rate of tax was spelled out.
Certain things were said by the minister of finance of that day and if the present minister wishes to find his words they appear in Hansard of May 19, 1959, at page 3820 as well as in the Senate Hansard of June 17, 1959, at page 839.
The user charge provided in this bill would clearly have a bearing on the revenue of the federal government and therefore it would be a taxation provision. This being so, I submit that the better parliamentary practice requires that the imposition of such a tax should be established by parliament and not by an Order in Council of the executive.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I could cite further authority for the minister but I will not hold up the proceedings of the committee. I suggest to him once again that the idea of imposing a charge for the mere availability of a service has no precedent whatsoever. The analogies he has drawn are poor ones and they cannot be compared with the situation which is being created by this bill. I suggest it would be cured by the removal of the word "availability" and simply leaving the matter on the basis of use.
There is one further, minor suggestion I would make to the minister. When he speaks later perhaps he will explain why this suggestion should not be adopted. I can see no reason for including in paragraph (b) in the second line the words "wherever resident". It seems to me that if use and availability are to be the criteria-and I suggest that the latter would be an improper criterion to use-it makes little difference whether these words are there at all because the criterion is an aircraft that is using the service and it makes no difference where the owner or operator might be resident.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into an argument on whether it is a charge or a tax. I simply restate the submission I made to the house during second reading, namely, that this is a proper charge and there is ample precedent for giving the Governor in Council the power to make
Aeronautics Act
regulations in respect of such charge for the use of services. With regard to charges for services that may be held available, this provision has become necessary because of the development of the air industry and new means of safety control involving weather information, radar, radio and electronic control. In the interests of safety in the air these services must be held available and it is in the interests of this country to impose a charge commensurate with the cost of providing these services for the benefit of air fines both domestic and international. It is in the interests of safety in the air that the air fines bear a share of these charges.
This type of charge is accepted as legal by the International Civil Aviation Organization. I am advised that the United States is considering an additional transportation charge for this very purpose. President Johnson recently made a request to Congress for this type of charge, using a different means but having the same goal. I am also led to understand that the United Kingdom is considering a systems charge for approaches. Australia has imposed a charge which we believe is similar to the availability charge but our officials do not have the details readily available.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, there is ample precedent in that the major air nations of the world are moving, in accordance with the development of civil aviation everywhere, toward imposing this kind of charge to reimburse partially the cost of these services which are provided along the great air highways and byways of the world. They are doing this to ensure that safety requirements are kept intact and well above the minimum. That is the basis for it. We have to move ahead with the times. I can assure the hon. member that these charges will not be imposed without consultation with the air fines concerned and we have already given them our undertaking that the charges will be reasonable.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, the minister has just added a further argument to my case. He has not directly answered the question: Is there any other country that is imposing a charge for the availability of electronic navigational aids? The answer to that question is no. I think the minister will find that is so. Canada is breaking new ground here. Nobody is attempting to stop Canada moving ahead but I think this is one area in which the government is advancing on a wrong basis.

March 31, 1S66
Aeronautics Act
The minister says that in the United States additional transportation charges are now being considered in order to cover this kind oi installation and maintenance in that country. That is vastly different from charging on the basis of availability every aircraft that uses Canadian air space. This is precisely, apart from general taxation that goes to the support of our highways, the principle upon which our highways system in Canada works. In other words, the provision of air safety in a country, like highway safety or any other public service, is an obligation of the general population. It is an obligation of the general ratepayer and not an obligation of the specific user, because the air lines themselves and other air users are not the only ones to benefit by the establishment and maintenance of these facilities.
The people who benefit from the establishment and maintenance of superior navigational aids are the general population in this country, everyone who uses the air lines. It would seem to me from what the minister has said that the United States is considering the imposition of an additional charge to passengers, in other words, the general public who are using air lines facilities in the United States. This is quite different from what this government is attempting to do by imposing a charge for the general availability of navigational aids in this country, and we are the first country to do such a thing.


John Napier Turner: The charge will eventually be reflected in the charge to passengers. The United States is doing it directly. This would be an indirect charge. Every nation in the world will have to insist on this type of charge for the availability of traffic control services.


Erik Nielsen: Precisely; and it should be a matter of general taxation just as it is in the establishment and maintenance of highways in this country. Do the passengers using the public ground transportation facilities in this country have to pay a special kind of fee for using the buses and other means of transportation that travel on these systems? The more the minister considers this matter, the more he will agree with me, I am sure, that the principle of establishing safe airways and the maintenance of radio and navigational facilities in the functioning of those airways is an obligation that lies on the shoulders of every citizen of the country and not just on the users of those facilities in the form of air lines or aircraft owners and fliers. The general

populace should be called upon to maintain this kind of service in the country. It is on this basis that I am pleading with the minister to reconsider the inclusion of the word "availability" in this paragraph. "Use", yes, but "availability" is much too vague and operates on a wrong principle entirely.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yukon, and I remember the hon. member raising a similar issue earlier. I have also listened carefully to the remarks which the minister made in reply to the hon. member's points. It seems to me that on the face of it the hon. member for Yukon had the better of the argument, particularly when he drew a parallel with our highways. At an earlier stage in our history when the people who made use of the roads were a relatively small segment of the population the custom of applying tolls on road users was a fairly common one, but as we reached the point where virtually everyone used the roads the idea of charging tolls disappeared.
The minister advanced the argument that because of the growth of air travel these charges were becoming necessary. On the other hand, if I understood him correctly, the hon. member for Yukon was arguing that because of the general use being made of air services now by perhaps not everyone but at one time or another by virtually everyone in the country, the parallel situation in respect of the use of our highways was a reversal of the argument put forward by the minister.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I have not pursued this question to the extent the hon. member for Yukon has, but I would make that observation to the minister. I know that the argument he is advancing on this particular point is one which appears to be, shall I say, a creeping philosophy within the Department of Transport. It is an argument which undoubtedly will have to be the subject matter of debate on quite a number of occasions. The question of principle involved is of great concern on the west coast of British Columbia at the present time in regard to the use of facilities provided to those who use the sea lanes rather than the air lanes which are involved in this particular discussion.
I just wanted to let the minister know that I do have some interest in this question and that on balance, as the matter stands at the moment, the hon. member for Yukon seems
March 31, 1966

to have the better argument in this particular case, at least in my judgment.


John Napier Turner: Might I interject tor a moment, Mr. Chairman? I had the advantage of reading the speech which the hon. member made three years ago in which he took the position I have taken this afternoon. I was hoping I would have him on my side.
May I refer him to page 5438 of Hansard for December 4, 1963. At the point in his speech where he was taking issue with the hon. member for Yukon for advancing the very argument he has advanced this afternoon, which is why I thought I would have the hon. member on my side when I saw him rise, the hon. member said:
I really do not think an analogy can be drawn between the situation of a plane owner and of an automobile owner in our present society. As the owner and driver of an automobile I certainly feel I contribute substantially in the course of a year toward the operation of public facilities which enable me to drive around the country. I do not feel that an unduly high levy should be exacted from plane operators, but I feel there is some reason why they should be required to pay a reasonable amount to defray the cost of facilities provided out of public funds.
His reasons were convincing then.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am quite aware of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that my initial reaction to the point which has been raised again by the hon. member for Yukon was along the lines quoted by the minister. I readily admit that it is quite largely a matter of assessment and judgment. I think that one of the functions of sitting in this house is to listen to arguments which are presented and perhaps reaching a somewhat different assessment of situations as we give further thought to them. The particular emphasis placed by the hon. member for Yukon in his presentation on the question of availability has something to do, I think, with my suggestion that it is a question to which some serious thought should be given. Undoubtedly air line operators as such should and do pay taxes analogous to the kind of taxes we pay when we buy gasoline for our cars. Perhaps there is a case for some of the charges being made for the use of landing facilities and other facilities provided through the Department of Transport.
I am not dogmatic in my own mind on this question. I merely say that on balance, after having listened to this renewal of the discussion, the hon. member for Yukon has the edge on the minister so far as this argument is concerned. However, I do not intend to pursue the question at great length because I
Aeronautics Act
do have one or two other matters I should like to discuss on clause 1. One of them has to do with clause 2 of the bill and I hope to propose a minor amendment to that clause. If I refer to it now the minister might be able to give it some consideration and perhaps accept it.
Clause 2 is an extension of the present section 4 of the act which provides as follows:
Subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the minister may make regulations to control and regulate air navigation over Canada-
Then it lists a number of items in detail.
The proposal is to amend that clause by adding a number of other additional fields in which the minister may make such regulations. The one at the head of the amending clause, paragraph (k), establishes the authority to make regulations concerning the maximum hours of work and other working conditions for pilots, co-pilots, navigators and flight engineers.
I realize that in part that is a consolidation of an existing power provided in another section of the act, but the point I should like to raise with the minister is this. Since the Aeronautics Act was passed by the house there have been developments regarding maximum hours of work and other work conditions. I refer in particular to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code which parliament passed last year.
It seems to me, particularly when we are dealing with amending legislation, that we should take steps to make it clear that any authority conferred upon the Governor in Council, or in this case on the minister with the approval of the Governor in Council, to make regulations in this field should be clearly subject to the over-riding authority of the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. I believe this should be made clear in paragraph (k) of clause 2.
I think it is likely that the regulations in connection with the maximum hours of work of pilots which will actually be enacted may be somewhat more favourable, shall we say, than the maximum provided by the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, but nevertheless it does seem to me that the principle involved here is one which warrants consideration.
I would suggest a simple amendment to the proposed clause 2 by inserting at the beginning of it such words as these: "Subject to the provisions of the Canada Labour

March 31, 1966
Aeronautics Act
(Standards) Code." Then the clause would continue with the words, "the maximum hours of work", and so on.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
This would make it quite clear that regulations could not be made under the authority of this section of the act which would in any way be less favourable than those which are set out as standards in the Canada Labour Code. I should like the minister to consider that idea. Perhaps he may agree when we come to clause 2 of the bill to accept an amendment along the lines I have proposed.
There is one other reference I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, which I may as well make now while I am on my feet. I am pleased to see included in the proposed amendments certain provisions in regard to appeals to the minister from decisions of the Air Transport Board. I do not know whether the minister who is piloting this bill through the house will recall the matter, but a couple of years ago I raised a matter of serious concern in my area of the country involving the fact that other air lines or interveners, as I believe they are called here, might be dissatisfied with a decision of the Air Transport Board and would not have the same right of appeal as the air line which was making the application for a licence or to amend its licence. I am glad to see that the bill we have before us now does take care, as I understand it, of what at the time I argued was a quite serious omission in the provisions of the Aeronautics Act.


Mr, Leboe:: Would the minister tell us approximately how much money is expected to be derived from these charges that we have been talking about? What amount will be available to the government? I am reminded that at some airports there are machines into which you can put money and get almost anything although to get a shave you have to go to the kitchen and plug in your razor. I am wondering just how far we are going to go with collecting these small amounts of money. How far are we going to go with the operation of these machines in the aeronautics business of Canada? Could the minister tell us approximately how much money is involved in this tax or charge?


John Napier Turner: I will get an estimate on that, Mr. Chairman. It is a little hard to estimate because it depends on the amount of traffic contemplated.


Mr. Leboe:: Mr. Chairman, if the minister could get the amount I think it would be of some use to the committee. I suspect that not a great deal of money is involved. If not very much money is going to be involved there must be some other way in which the amount of tax, or whatever you want to call it, can be collected so that the amount of revenue can remain approximately the same.
There is a principle involved here. I agree with the hon. member for Yukon who says that we should not be operating on this basis at all. I think, as he does, that the principle is wrong.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, let me say that I have given the undertaking that the charge will not be unreasonable in relation to the cost. I want to recall to hon. members that the analogy of compulsory pilotage is not too farfetched. There are areas in international and domestic waters where compulsory pilotage is required whether needed or not, and in terms of marine safety it is well known that this is justified. In terms of the expanding areas of stand-by charges, in the light of modern methods this charge, although it might be considered novel, is certainly not unusual in the light of the expansion and development of the industry.
A good proportion of the charges for the available services will be made to international air lines flying over Canadian territory and taking advantage of the safety measures that we have by way of electronic devices and things of that sort. The people of Canada would really be subsidizing a great proportion of the world's air traffic over the pole if we did not have the power to make a charge for these available services. In effect Canada will be providing the safety measures for a good part of the world's air traffic but limited to jurisdiction over Canadian territory.
I want to bring to the attention of hon. members that while this new charge is not unusual in terms of modern safety it is only adopted because of the expanding nature and the insistent requirements of safety in the air. Canada will be responsible for a good proportion of the world's air traffic over its territory. These charges will not be unreasonable having regard to the cost that Canada will be incurring to provide these measures.


Bert Raymond Leboe: Will these charges apply to small aircraft flying in and out of a particular home airport? I refer to an airport such as
March 31. 1966	COMMONS
Montreal. Will there be any charge for aircraft based there? Will there be any charges in connection with chartered aircraft that might be using these facilities?


John Napier Turner: In reply, the words of the bill are:
The Governor in Council may make regulations . . . imposing upon the owners or operators of aircraft, wherever resident, in respect of flights within Canada, charges-
These charges, of course, will be geared to the size and equipment of the aircraft. That is the only answer I can give the hon. member on that question.


Erik Nielsen: The minister referred to the analogy of pilotage. He is trying to show that there is an analogy on the basis of shipping in national and international waters being required to carry pilots whether or not the services are needed. That in no way is common ground with what is being attempted in this bill, which is an attempt to impose a charge for the mere availability of services which may or may not be required to be used. There is a great deal of difference between the two.
Perhaps I might mention here something referred to by the hon. member for Cariboo with respect to these charges. I have before me a table of the revenues collected from landing fees and aviation fuel and oil concessions at airports operated by the Department of Transport for the period of May 1, 1963, to October 31, 1963, some six months. The table covers all airports in the provinces and territories of Canada.
The table shows that fees charged to domestic users amounted in that period to $1,972,841.45; for transoceanic users the fees amounted to $1,916,980.47; for test flights the charges were $9,202.00; international transborder fees were $488,263.59, and fees charged by way of fuel and aviation tax at 1 cent per gallon on fuel and 5 cents per gallon on oil were $1,083,752.18.
We are not speaking about small amounts. We are speaking of the kind of charges to which I have referred. Perhaps what I say might be merged in the minister's reply to the question by the hon. member for Cariboo. It is no longer international flights that are subject to a charge or to a tax, as I call it, under this clause. Affected is the owner or user of every aircraft using the electronic navigational aids provided by the Department of Transport in this country whether he is operating a private aircraft, whether he is
DEBATES	3673
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion operating a commercial non-scheduled charter service-and goodness knows we must not do anything in my view to stifle the growth of this kind of service in the northern part of the country-or whether the operator is an international carrier.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I should have no objection whatsoever if the government wished to impose a charge for the use of this kind of facility. My objection rests solely on the inclusion in the legislation of the particular word "availability". It is functioning on a wrong principle to impose a charge on every aircraft owner in this country, or even give the authority for it, on the vague basis that the service is available and whether or not you use it you have to pay me a charge. That is like my saying to the minister: I have an empty garage at home; you have to pay me $50 a month for it whether or not you use it. That principle is wrong, and the use of the word "availability" in this legislation would allow that to happen.
Many aircraft used on non-scheduled work and, indeed, on commercial scheduled work do not contain the sophisticated electronic equipment which is capable of using the kind of facilities provided in Canada. For instance, OMNI is used extensively in the southern part of Canada but in the northern part we have not got it, and for us in the north to be charged for the use of a facility like that when it does not assist us would be wrong.
Progress reported.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that with the consent of the house we adjourn after royal assent until eight o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would suggest that this should be considered when we return from the other place.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 39A the following matters will be discussed at ten o'clock this evening: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), The Canadian Economy-effect on pensioners of increasing cost of living; the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Keays), Northern Affairs -construction of replica of "Grande Hermine" for Expo '67; the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Grills), Income Tax-allowance of municipal taxation on farm homes.

March 31, 1966
Motions for Papers THE ROYAL ASSENT
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT]	(6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act.
An act to incorporate Evangelistic Tabernacle Incorporated.
An act to authorize the construction of a bridge across the St. Croix River between the Province of New Brunswick and the State of Maine.
An act to amend the Judges Act.
An act to amend the Admiralty Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1967.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1966.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago I made the suggestion that we might be well advised to adjourn for a supper hour and return at eight o'clock, with consent. Do we have that consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT]	(6:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: It being after six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris commission by the chartered accountants hired by the commission and deposited by Mr. Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.
Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on the last occasion the house was discussing the question of the production of papers respecting the Norris commission it was suggested that the house did not have the authority to order such papers tabled by virtue of the legislation itself, which is quite true. It was pointed out by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) that the commission was set up under the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act and that section 56 (5) states specifically with reference to section 33 of that act:
-the information so obtained from such documents shall not, except as the Conciliation Board deems expedient, be made public.
Hon. members will recall that Justice Norris made a full and complete report which ran to two volumes, and I am sure that he made public all relevant matters which he determined to be in the public's interest. Surely to assume otherwise would be to doubt the competency of the Justice himself.
If this motion were to pass it seems to me that the department would have no alternative but to make a nil return. However, since the matter has been discussed at length by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and other members on this side of the house I will not ask you to make a ruling at this time.
One can only wonder what is behind the determination on the part of the New Democratic Party to reveal all the working papers which formed part of the study of Mr. Justice Norris. It seems to me that this involves a continuing harassment of independent unions not affiliated with the larger bodies, most of whom are making regular contributions to the N.D.P.
In the opening remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North he said certain things which I feel would justify the assumption that he felt that because donations had been made by the Seafarers' International Union to certain candidates running for parliament there was some sinister motive in the union's action. It was also suggested that because the Seafarers' International Union had made contributions to Liberal candidates it was made much easier for Hal Banks to carry on his nefarious undertakings. At one point, as reported at page 1027 of Hansard of February 10, 1966, the hon. member for Winnipeg North said:
I think it is important to establish certain facts.
March 31, 1966

He then continued to establish certain facts and said, as reported on page 1027:
I do not have to tell members of this house what Mr. Justice Norris found. I do not have to tell members of this house that he found that the S.I.U., headed by Mr. Banks, had been guilty of acts of violence, beatings, arson and other illegal actions. It was then that the house was asked to vote-
He was referring to the legislation brought in to establish the board of trustees which is now administering the affairs of certain maritime unions.
The hon. member states further:
Mr. Banks is probably as bad as everything that has been said about him and possibly worse, but he could not have done those things unless he had received the co-operation of very influential and important organizations outside the labour movement.
Further on he said:
I pointed out the connections which he had with other organizations and which he must have certainly had with political figures in the areas in which his union operated.
As found on page 1028 the hon. member for Winnipeg North quoted extensively from a newspaper article which appeared in the Toronto Star in which the reporter, Robert Reguly, implied that he had seen certain documents held by the Department of Labour and that in those documents there was reference to certain cheques having been issued to certain candidates in the Montreal area. I was the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour for some time and this charge did not sufficiently concern me to investigate it because I was not interested in what was or was not contained in those papers. I do know there were no cheques issued to me but had there been I should not have felt any embarrassment in that fact being made public.
The implication being made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is that, because these contributions were made, in some way or another these political figures were able to conspire to allow Mr. Banks to get away with these acts of violence. He is suggesting guilt by inference or guilt by association. If what the hon. member is saying is true, then of course these members would be as guilty as Mr. Banks himself.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I am sure that if Mr. Banks did make any contributions in 1962 they were probably for the favour he received in being brought into this country in the first place. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) will recall, as will many other members of
Motions for Papers
this house, that Mr. Banks was brought into this country many years ago by some people in government, business and elsewhere who had the mistaken impression that he could do a "bang-up" job of ridding the Canadian maritime unions of Communists.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, indeed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The hon. member referred to those who had mistaken ideas of what Mr. Banks could do. Would he include certain leaders of the labour movement?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Indeed. I am glad the hon. member brought that matter to my attention. At that time it was the Canadian Labour Congress.


An hon. Member:: And the C.N.T.U.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Perhaps the C.N.T.U. also. I do not recall that but I am sure it was the industrial organization of the time, namely, the Canadian Labour Congress, which held this mistaken impression.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: These people found there are worse things in unions than Communists which could cause even more damage. I wonder whether members of the New Democratic Party would mind my taking a few moments to show that all the gangsters, all the wrongdoers in the labour movement, are not in those unions outside the C.L.C. and that indeed there have been extreme acts of violence perpetrated by the Steelworkers close to where we are at this moment, namely, the province of Quebec in the Gaspe peninsula.
Before doing so I wish to establish the fact-it is a known fact but should be put on the record-that the Steelworkers Union, to which I shall refer later, makes contributions to the New Democratic Party and in return, of course, demands that members of the New Democratic Party perform as they suggest. I am not-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member permit a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -suggesting that all those hon. members comply with their demands, but the union asks that certain things be done. The hon. member for Kootenay West is getting

March 31, 1966
Motions for Papers
quite agitated. I shall refer to him in a moment. Perhaps you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, to read in support of my remarks an editorial gem from the "Miners' Voice", the Steelworkers regular weekly, or perhaps it is monthly, paper. It is headed, "What's With The N.D.P.?" I shall not read the whole article but among other things it says: Steelworker full-time staff representatives contribute generously to the party's coffers by way of salary check-off. Thousands of rank and file steelworkers are party members and workers. The union is the party's largest Canadian labour affiliate.
One takes for granted that the party's politicians reciprocate this solid support. One would at least expect that they would not ignore, dismiss or condone malicious attacks on the steelworkers by the union's opponents. Not so.
The second last paragraph of the editorial is the one in which they make reference to the hon. member for Kootenay West who, by the way, is an honorary member of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers Union.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And proud of it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: It is a union of which, I am happy to say, I was a long-time member and am now an honorary life member. This paragraph of the editorial says:
Two such Mine Mill apologists come to mind. They are Leonard Mahoney,-
This is not Bill Mahoney, by the way.
-reeve of Mountjoy Township and the baron of the Kootenays, H. W. Herridge, M.P.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The article continues:
Mahoney, a member of Mine Mill's paper Local 241 in Timmins is actively sabotaging the Steelworkers' bid to weld-
This is the Steelworkers sophisticated way of saying "raiding".
-one powerful mine union.
Then it says:
Herridge graces Mine Mill's table and sings its praises for the agitprop boys' propaganda mill.
I think I should read the last paragraph:
For some years, we have suffered these antics in silence. We think the time has come when responsible N.D.P. leaders and members had better declare themselves. We want to know where they sit!


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know where I stand.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I said earlier that I am not going to presume guilt by association. I know there are many members of the New Democratic Party who would not condone receiving donations from a union which 
would perpetrate such acts of violence as are recorded in this little book called "The Rule of Law," and more specifically and in more detail in the unofficial translation of the judgment of Mr. Justice Antoine Lacourciere who heard the case against the Steelworkers brought by the Gaspe Copper Mining Company. The exact name is not important.


An hon. Member:: Noranda.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Gaspe Copper Mines, Limited. As I said, I am not implying that members are dishonest because of this, but the inference was certainly made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) respecting Liberal members.


Mr. Scotl:: Filibuster.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I should like to cite just a few gems from this judgment. First the judge says:
This strike was absolutely illegal, in flagrant contravention of article 24 of the Labour Relations Act of the province of Quebec, which forbids any strike so long as an employees' association has not been recognized as representing the group of employees in Question.


Reid Scott: Question.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I quote further from the report of the judgment:
From the beginning of the strike, force was paramount; in the first place the blockade of the plant, a blockade which, in its first nine days was so effective that it was impossible to get provisions to those workers held captive in the plant.
Another paragraph reads:
We know by the testimony.. .that a violence committee, baptized the Hi-Fi, had been formed by Bedard-
He is a Steelworkers' official.
-with the specific aim of stopping production of copper through acts of sabotage.
I continue to read from the report of the judgment:
It was on July 12, 1957, that... (three strikers)... went to dynamite the tailings line, and in this expedition... (one of them)... was killed, and... (the other two)...were very seriously injured.
Being a miner I know the dangers of explosives and as I hold a certificate as a shift boss I would not allow one dynamite cap, one detonator, to be set off in or about a mine without having set guards at all possible entries. Here we have three Steelworkers-
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I have been listening very carefully to the remarks made
March 31, 19G6



by the hon. member. I am quite sure he is acquainted with the narrow limits of debate on a motion for the production of papers. I would have to say at the beginning that he is getting beyond that. May I refer him to a statement made by Mr. Speaker Michener on February 8, 1962, as reported at page 682 of Hansard for that year:
Order. Before the hon. member proceeds further with that line of argument I think I should say to him that my view of the scope of the motion is that it is limited to the desirability of the production of the documents. The motion is one calling on the government to produce the documents referred to in the motion. The question in issue is whether or not they should be produced.
Later, on November 22, 1962, Mr. Speaker Lambert made the following observation which is reported at page 1911 of Hansard:
I think the hon. member will recognize the rather narrow confines of the debate in this regard. These have been referred to quite definitely by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George who cited the decisions of my predecessor to the effect that what is, in fact, the issue of this motion is not what is behind the documents, or what is their substance, but whether they should be produced or not.
Mr. Speaker Lambert then went on to say:
I think the hon. member will, on reflection, see he is going a little beyond that.
I have further citations here which I could give the hon. member but I think I have said sufficient for the house to realize the narrow limits within which the debate on a motion for the production of papers must be confined. I hope hon. members will confine themselves within those limits.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order you have raised, I must say with great respect that in the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, part of which I have quoted, the hon. member made the argument that it was in the public interest that these papers be produced because a labour union had made contributions to a political party for special favour, in this case the Liberal Party. It turned out that one or two of the officials of this union acted in such a way as to be brought to court and sentenced to do time in prison. On the other hand, no action was taken to recover damages and so on. My argument now is to show that this is not necessarily correct.
Simply because a union makes contributions to a political party, it does not mean that the political party is tarred with the same brush as some irresponsible officers of the union. I am certainly not implying that any of the members of the N.D.P. are tarred with 23033-233
Motions for Papers
the brush of the Bedards to whom I have referred as having been implicated in acts of violence much greater and more damaging than any wrongdoing in connection with the S.I.U. I was about to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this affair might have cost the lives of 10, 15, 20 or any number of workers. One worker was in fact killed. So these acts of violence were much greater than anything that was perpetrated on the Great Lakes. I think the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North falls to the ground in flames when this is understood.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I now have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Is it not true, Mr. Speaker, that I lost about five minutes on the point of orders?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Speaker was very careful to note the time he commenced referring to citations, which occupied about three minutes. Those three minutes were added to the hon. gentleman's time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief. The hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne) suggested that this resolution was placed on the order paper to harass an independent union because it did not belong to the Canadian Congress of Labour or supply funds to our party. I think he is quite mistaken in this respect. The resolution was placed on the order paper with a view to getting the information contained in these documents and making this information public.
Quite frankly, let me say that I am an honorary member of Mine, Mill and I have no love for the Steelworkers Union and have no hesitation in saying so. I do not believe in splitting the working class and causing disunity in communities and the harassment of unions which have a good record of service over the years.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he make reference to the plans of the Steelworkers to rig Mine, Mill at Trail, British Columbia, starting this year? They have already announced that intention. Would he make reference to this fact when speaking about the Steelworkers and Mine, Mill?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think I am in order, Mr. Speaker. If this unfortunate development does occur then all I can say is that without any

March 31, 1966
Motions for Papers
question I shall be lined up alongside Mine, Mill. I can tell the Steelworkers officers right now that they are in for a hot time if they come into the Kootenays.
Having said that regarding the hon. member's remarks about his labour affiliations and other views, may I say that the members of this caucus support certain political principles and political programs. But if by any chance we differ from our political brothers over certain concrete matters coming before this house or with regard to our belonging to a certain union, the rule of our caucus is that we are always allowed to exercise our conscience on such occasions and act as we see fit. That has been recognized as our practice in this house for a good many years.
For example, we took that stand when Mr. Woodsworth opposed Canada's entry into the second world war. We recognized that principle when Mr. Coldwell supported German rearmament, and it has been recognized on numerous occasions. Therefore I make these observations only because I thought the hon. member's inference that this resolution was introduced just to harass an independent union was somewhat unfair.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: I did not say that entirely. I said it was also to harass members of parliament.


Mr. Matheson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question before he resumes his seat? Is he fairly characterized by the appellation, "the baron of the Kootenays"?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That, Mr. Speaker is a pressman's nightmare. I much prefer to be known as "the hillybilly from the Arrow Lakes".
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Before beginning my remarks on this motion, Mr. Speaker, I believe I should recall to the house an occasion in the 1962 Parliament when I had the temerity to refer to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) as "the baron of the Kootenays". After I had referred to the thousands of acres which I understood he owned in that area, he leaped up and said that he was only a trustee pending the revolution. I do not know into which of the programs of his party that comment fitted, and it may come as a surprise to some people in some of the urban areas of the country who supported his party. I am certainly not unwilling to accord to the hon. member that point of view because it is part of the

freedom which we should have in this great country of ours.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, after reviewing the notice of motion and in particular the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who presented the motion, that he made a very unusual argument in support of it. I hope I am summarizing his argument fairly, but I understood him to say that because a reporter for a Toronto newspaper was alleged to have somehow or other gotten a glance at certain working papers of the Norris Commission, it is now perfectly correct and proper for this house to adopt a motion forcing the production of these documents in their entirety in this house. Perhaps it could be said that there would be some form of merit in this argument if the provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to which reference has already been made, were not in existence.
It seems to me that since these provisions are in existence then it must be these provisions that govern. It has been stated on several occasions in this house that the provisions of section 33 of the act make information contained in documents produced for the use of a conciliation board confidential unless the conciliation board deems it expedient to make that information public. Of course, section 56 of the act, which permits the creation of industrial inquiries, demands the application of this section with regard to conciliation boards to the work of industrial inquiry commissions.
It would seem to me that if this parliament deemed it proper for these documents to be produced for its use and for the use of the public generally, then the proper and lawful step would be to pass an amendment to the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act permitting documents of this type to be made public. This could then be done through a resolution of the house or some other method. More particularly, the amendment might specifically permit the production of the documents now sought by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. Unless this step is taken I say it is quite improper, if not contrary to law, to have these documents produced in this house.
The matter has a much wider ambit than the narrow question before us in this resolution. What I say now is an attempt to urge the members of this house, when the time comes, to vote against the production of the documents requested by the hon. member for
March 31, 1966

Winnipeg North. I suggest that what we have in the Industrial Relations a nd Disputes Investigation Act is analagous to the requirements in the income tax legislation making documents filed under that legislation completely confidential even though the contents of those documents might be of interest to individual members of parliament or parliament as a whole.
What the hon. member for Winnipeg North seems to be attempting to say in his motion is that the mere fact that through some inadvertence, or perhaps even by some design, a reporter for a Toronto newspaper was able to see these documents, then the clear provisions of a law passed by this parliament can be disregarded merely by passing a resolution in this house. If this principle is correct, then the following situation could happen:	If
someone left an income tax return lying on a desk in plain sight in some district taxation office and a member of the public happened to take a look at it and, not knowing the requirements of the law or perhaps knowing the requirements and ignoring them, referred to the contents publicly in the press or on radio or television, then it would be possible, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, to have the entire return produced in this house simply by the passage of a resolution.
I think there are many precedents in the Journals of this house which make it clear it is not proper, at the request of a member or at the request of the house itself, for the government to produce confidential information or information deemed to be confidential under the income tax law. I suggest that the situation is no different here. If this were not the case, as I have said, a very difficult and trouble-fraught situation could arise very easily. It would be possible, as I have attempted to suggest, to have confidential income tax information produced through the simple expedient of leaving an income tax return lying on a desk so that through inadvertence or design some member of the public could take a look at it.
Then a person could drop a few hints to the press, the information would be published and it would be perfectly proper, according to the principle which the hon. member for Winnipeg North is attempting to suggest, to have the entire income tax return brought before this house. Surely no one would agree this is the correct procedure. Surely no one would agree that we should adopt a principle, by means of the passage of this motion, 23033-233!
Motions for Papers
which would lend credence to a very dangerous argument. There would be no point in this parliament passing a law which said certain information shall be confidential if that law could be swept away by the simple passage of a resolution of this house rather than through formal amendment of the legislation just because some member of the public happened to get a glance at some confidential document. I find this argument difficult to accept.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North is not here but if he were in the house I should like to ask him this question. If someone through inadvertence happened to get a glance at his income tax return and published the details in a Toronto or Winnipeg newspaper, would he say it would be proper for me as a member of this house to move a motion requesting that his entire return be made public? The hon. member for Winnipeg North is reported on page 1029 of Hansard for February 10 to have said:
I do not ask for any special rights for myself or any other member of parliament but surely members of parliament are entitled to the same rights and privileges as are given to anybody else.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Would he apply that same argument if someone saw his income tax return through inadvertence? I doubt it very much. Therefore I suggest that on grounds of logic, law and common sense what he has attempted to argue in his remarks is equally lacking in validity when applied to the documents in which he is interested in having filed in this house through this notice of motion.
It may well be that a member of the public should not have more rights than a member of parliament has or that a member of parliament in many circumstances should not have more rights than a member of the public, but where parliament through a formal expression in the passage of a law has said that certain documents are confidential unless certain things happen, then even though a member of the public through some inadvertence or similar reason gets a look at a document of a certain sort that certainly does not create a whole set of rights on the part of this parliament to disregard the legislation in question and have the entire document produced.
It could well be that if the Norris Commission were still in existence Mr. Justice Norris as the commissioner could direct the production of these documents. I think this is implied in the words of the statute. This does not give very much support to the argument

March 31. 1966
Motions for Papers
of the hon. member for Winnipeg North because the Norris Commission has made its final report, and I would gather that under the law it has gone out of existence. The only body that has the power under the present law to have these documents produced no longer exists.
The only step, as I have suggested, which would properly permit this body to bring about the production of these documents is an amendment to the legislation which makes them confidential. Because of the very dangerous principle that seems to be involved in the notice of motion which the hon. member for Winnipeg North has presented to us, it would seem to me that the motion should be withdrawn.
It is no reflection on him that he is not here today to speak on this point. It may well be that he has other urgent business to attend to. Had he been here he might well have risen in his place to agree that this notice of motion be withdrawn. It may well be that other members of his party who are here would be authorized to call for the withdrawal of this motion to avoid creating a precedent which would be dangerous to the rights of individuals generally who have reason to feel and believe that because of legislation passed by parliament documents and information produced by them under the command of such legislation would remain confidential until the legislation is amended.
It might be said: Well, does this mean that nothing will happen if someone gets a look at the document in question? I say that the legislation itself contains its own remedy where it permits the application of penalties to people who are proven to have contravened that law. I am not suggesting that this is necessarily the case here. The fact is that the legislation does contain its own remedy if somebody can be proven to have acted improperly in taking a look at the documents in question. For the reasons I have presented to you, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the house reject this notice of motion.


Richard Joseph Cashin: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) has presented a very clear and concise case for the rejection of the motion before the house. I should like to make a few comments about it.
In making my remarks in public I wish to point out that I am as concerned as many people are about the Canadian position of keeping some things private. However, I am not sure that the policy on production of

papers generally in the House of Commons is as clear as it ought to be. Perhaps at some future date this matter can be dealt with more thoroughly.
We do know that in England all such documents as are raised by the motion are deemed private unless specifically designated as public in a statute. Sweden has the reverse approach. But in this country we have a long tradition of a more or less in between position. I would think that this particular motion in the way it is brought is not the way to bring about a change in our system.
It may well be that the hon. member acknowledges that this motion falls short of being acceptable. It may be that he wishes to indicate that the present system respecting confidential documents is in need of change. I do not think it would be advisable for us to go about changing anything in this indirect fashion. The law as set out in the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act is quite clear and I think it would be wrong for us to fly in the face of that law and to circumvent it by the back door, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North.
I believe there would be many undesirable reactions to changing the law in this way. If this motion were to pass I feel that the government as a matter of principle would probably have to refer this whole matter to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision.
We may not agree with the system that exists in Canada today but I think it would be most undesirable for us to change it in this particular fashion. May I also say that to do it in this way might involve other things. The hon. member for Essex West has pointed out the example of income tax. There are very good reasons why, if this motion were allowed to pass, this same reasoning could be used in respect of income tax documents or other private documents.
I would also suggest that while our law stands as it is it would not do to appoint a commissioner or committee to look into something with respect to the law and then say: This is the law but at some time in a rather surreptitious way parliament may undermine your position. This would put any judge or commissioner in an untenable position. I think we should be clear and straightforward.
If we do not like the law I think we ought to try to bring about ways and means to change it but I do not think it ought to be done in this surreptitious way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being seven o'clock the house will return to the business interrupted by private members' hour.
March 31, 1966



AERONAUTICS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-153, to amend the Aeronautics Act-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
John Napier Turner: the third reading of the bill.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Speaker, an amendment has been incorporated in the bill, and I think it is usual when that happens that it should not be read a third time straight away, unless there is something urgent about it.
Motion stands.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


John Napier Turner: the second reading of Bill No. C-152, to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the government would have provided the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) to make an opening statement.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is on his way down. We did not anticipate the immediate co-operation we got on the last measure. If hon. members wish to speak on second reading I can guarantee that the minister will be in his place.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: It would have been helpful if the minister had been here to make a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. Perhaps we might pause for a moment until the minister comes down.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the time the resolution preceding the bill was introduced a full statement was made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud), on behalf of the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) who was then recovering from pneumonia, and if hon. members direct their attention to the declaration made at that time they would be able to gather the general import of the bill. Perhaps if hon. members are willing to speak on the bill until the minister arrives we can expedite
Rural Development
the business of the house. Meantime I ask the indulgence of the house.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, can we have some information as to the time we may have to wait? It seems that the government is in a hurry to get working but we cannot work without the necessary implements.


John Napier Turner: In any event I understand the minister was not planning to make a statement at the beginning and preferred to make a concluding statement in which he would give consideration to the points raised by hon. members in the debate.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I find this a rather unusual situation. It is understandable that the minister was ill when the resolution was introduced. We accept that. We find no quarrel with the fact that he was unable to be here then and had some other minister move the resolution for him. But since he is the minister responsible, I am sure the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Turner) recognizes it is quite customary, on second reading, for such a minister to make a statement, outlining in greater detail the proposals contained in a particular bill. But if the minister is not to be found, and the government finds itself in its usual bind-it is not unusual to have confusion on the other side and this evening is a typical example of the organization within the Liberal party-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I should bring to the attention of hon. members that we have a bill before the house and I would invite them to participate in discussion of the bill.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: This I propose to do, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure you recognize it would have been very helpful to have the minister make an opening statement so that my remarks could be based on it.
However, since the minister is not here I shall go ahead in order to expedite the business of the house. We can only go by the statement that was made by the Minister of Fisheries when introducing the legislation, and by the contents of the bill, which are self-explanatory. I am glad to see that the minister and the government have come to recognize the value of this legislation. I recall that at the time of second reading of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act in 1961 the then minister of agriculture was also absent, and it fell upon me as his parliamentary secretary to make the opening statement on that occasion.

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
I also recall numerous comments were made by members of the then opposition to the effect that the scope of the measure was so large and so broad that it would encompass almost anything the government proposed to do. In fact there was some reference to the possibility of building a subway in Montreal and in Toronto under the terms of the legislation. But now we find the present minister introducing amendments which he says will greatly expand and broaden the scope of the legislation. That is a contradiction, because at the time it was introduced they said it gave the government too many powers.
Following passage of the legislation, during the period that the administration of ARDA was being set up, there was relatively little that could be done except to carry out certain surveys and undertake the administrative work necessary to make the legislation operative. Then, following the election of 1963, there was a change of government and the former member for Calgary South, who became minister of agriculture, was responsible for the administration of the act.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
We all recall the difficulties that the government were in at that time in respect of who was going to be responsible for the administration of this act. Finally it fell upon the Minister of Forestry to assume responsibility. I say quite frankly he has applied himself with diligence and sincerity in making this legislation the type of legislation that was envisaged by the former ministry. Again I am sure hon. members opposite will forgive me if I go back and remind them of the criticism they levelled at the minister at that time, stating that he was visionary. But he had seen much further ahead than they could, at that time. Today they are reaping the benefits of that vision, because this legislation is doing precisely what the minister at that time intended it should do. Mind you, it does require a great deal of co-operation on the part of the provincial governments, it requires a great deal of initiative on the part of the people in the communities in which the act is to apply, and it requires some direction on the part of the minister. I am quite pleased that the minister is providing leadership in that direction.
It is ironical, of course, to have to point out that the legislation they criticized as being too visionary in 1961 now is the type of legislation which they see will do a great deal to help them implement their so-called war

on poverty. The bill intends to do several things. First of all, it intends to appoint an advisory committee and provide for the payment of the members of that committee, whereas in the original legislation the bill provided only for their travelling expenses. I have no objection to this, if it is used in the context in which it is intended to be used; but we have had experiences on the part of this government where positions constantly were being created for former or defeated Liberal candidates and friends of the Liberal party.
I hope the purpose of this legislation is to provide for the expenses of an advisory committee that truly is an advisory committee, and not just a committee for defeated remnants of the Liberal Party. The government will do well to ensure that the persons appointed to this advisory committee do have some experience.


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a point of order just to make sure we know what is before us. We are on Bill C-152, and I think it is in the other bill, C-151, that the advisory committee is provided for.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I believe, because of the fact that the minister is not here we should not draw the inference that he wishes to put a limitation on discussion of this bill, although really the purpose of the bill is only to change the name of ARDA. It surely is in order to discuss all the problems of ARDA, because the minister himself has not seen fit to be here to limit it.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: If the hon. member will look at the proposed new section 6 in Bill C-152 he will notice there is provision for an advisory committee, and to pay "such amount for each day he attends any meeting of the committee and is entitled to be paid reasonable travelling and living expenses while absent from his ordinary place of residence in the course of his duties". That is part and parcel of the bill. I presume the hon. member had not read the bill thoroughly and was not aware of this. This certainly is part of the bill.


John Napier Turner: I think the parliamentary secretary is very familiar with the terms of the bill.


John B. Stewart: I was not criticizing the hon. member. I merely wanted to make it clear to the house that we were dealing with Bill C-152, and that he was referring to this
March 31, 1966

particular passage in this particular bill rather than to the much more obvious provision in the other very closely related bill.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I assure the hon. member I was dealing with this particular bill. I do not intend to deal with it clause by clause. I was making a reference to this clause because it is in the bill and I wanted to include it in my general remarks. The clause by clause consideration will come up eventually.
I notice finally they have located the minister. I wonder whether he would care to go ahead with his remarks at this time and perhaps I could follow him later, if I could be given permission to do so. I am sure the minister would wish to make a statement.


John Napier Turner: It will be without prejudice to the hon. member's right to continue his speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Forestry.


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. members will excuse me. I was here until 5.30 and I thought my bill would only be called a little later on. Please accept my apologies.
This bill was read the first time on March 18, when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) was kind enough to replace me here. As the hon. members know, I was then recovering from an illness and could not be here, although I would have liked to tell them what I shall now make clear to them.
We had no intention whatever of bringing forward an amendment to the act known as ARDA. It was the Department of Justice which, some time last year, thought that the act passed in 1961 restricted to rural areas, where agriculture was possible, projects submitted by provincial governments and approved by the federal government. And doubts were raised in the Department of Justice about the legality of certain projects submitted to us by some of the provinces and which, while they concerned rural areas, were not meant for a region where agriculture was possible. I am thinking especially of Newfoundland and certain areas of the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
It is only after long discussions with the Department of Justice that we decided to introduce an amendment to the act passed, in 1961. Had there not been that insistence from the Department of Justice or that inter-
Rural Development
pretation of the 1961 legislation, Bill C-152 now before the house would serve no purpose.
Therefore, I wish to reassure all hon. members of this house and say that we have no intention of removing from the statute books this act known as ARDA. On the contrary I will have the pleasure, in a few minutes, to move an amendment to section 2 (1), which will definitely establish the ARDA abbreviation.
If the hon. members of this house refer to chapter 30, 9-10 Elizabeth II, an act to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural lands and the development of rural areas in Canada, assented to on June 22, 1961, they will notice that the short title of the act makes no reference to the ARDA abbreviation, neither in English nor in French. And I think that because of the importance of this act, which was passed unanimously by the house on May 31, 1961, after a stirring address by the minister of agriculture of the day, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), it is important to establish in the facts and in the act the ARDA abbreviation.
This, I think will reassure all hon. members and, had there been no obligation for us to amend the act, we would have continued using this abbreviation, which as yet is not part of the act.
It will be recalled that it was on December 15, 1960 that the minister of agriculture of the day, now the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, moved the resolution introducing this act in the house of commons. He had been minister of agriculture since October 11, 1960, and it is his predecessor, the hon. member for Calgary North-I believe it is not known generally in the house-who had taken the initiative in proposing to the then government the act now known under the name of ARDA. The hon. member for Calgary North was therefore closely associated with the preparation of this act which, I am sure, is still endorsed by all members of this house. As I said earlier, this piece of legislaion was passed unanimously, which happens very seldom nowadays, and I hope that at the end of our discussions, today if possible, hon. members will agree to pass unanimously the proposed amendment or amendments.
We only propose striking out from certain sections of the act the word "agricultural" and, in some cases, substituting for it the word "rural". We also suggest an explanation about advisory committees, namely in subsection (6), section 7 of the present bill.

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
At the time of its implementation, this act had three main purposes: first, the subsidiary use of lands or the efficient use and economic development of submarginal agricultural lands; second, the development of rural areas and, third, soil and water conservation.
I think that since its implementation and approval in June 1961, this act has achieved its purposes. It resulted from the work of a Senate committee, known as the special committee on land use, set up by the previous government and sponsored by the then prime minister, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.
In 1960 the committee presented a report and the government of the day, headed by right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had agreed to the report and introduced the bill I have mentioned'.
Since 1962 many achievements have occurred under ARDA. I feel it would be of interest to make a brief survey of what has happened so that the honourable members of this house may realize that in spite of the fact that my immediate predecessor, the minister of agriculture Mr. Hays or the hon. member for Qu'Appelle have not given much publicity to the legislation or to its achievements, a lot of work has been done.
I should like to quote just a few figures to indicate how seriously the members of the previous administration and of the present one have all mightily laboured together to improve living conditions in rural communities.
Often during my speeches in and out of this house, I have recalled the important part the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has played with respect to this legislation and again tonight, although he is absent from this house, I should like to point out the admiration which his work as minister responsible for ARDA has aroused. His work has been an inspiration for me, and I am sure if he returns to the house he will support the bill I am moving tonight on behalf of the government.
In 1962-63, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 108 projects were approved at a total cost of $2 million as the federal government's share.
In 1963-64, the provincial governments having become initiated to the method of operations of ARDA, and the federal government being more familiar with the plan, the number of projects increased to 292 for a

federal government contribution of nearly $10 million.
During the fiscal year 1964-65, ending March 31, 1965, the number of programs increased to 352 for a federal commitment of $21 million.
Between April 1 and November 30, 216 programs were approved representing a total commitment of $15 million.
I would not want to give a long account of the amounts received by each province. Suffice it to say that Quebec followed by Saskatchewan and Manitoba, are the provinces which have most availed themselves of the advantages of that act; moreover, they are pursuing their efforts along the lines they had adopted earlier.
On April 1, 1965, a new agreement entitled the "Federal-provincial agreement on rural development" became operative. This new agreement, to apply for five years, that is, till March 31, 1970, was the fruit of the experience gained in the first three years and of the co-operation between ARDA federal authorities and each one of the ten provincial governments.
When the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) asked me on March 4, 1964 to take over the administration of that act, I immediately undertook to meet the ministers responsible for the application of ARDA in each of the provinces. I visited every province and discussed the matter with provincial authorities and this led, after numerous discussions, not only with the provincial governments but also with various associations and organizations, to the series of proposals we sent all Canadian provinces early in October 1964.
Those proposals were discussed at a federal-provincial conference at the end of November 1964.
One word about that conference: in my opinion, it expressed concretely new administrative concepts in the field of federal-provincial relations, concepts which consist, once the objective to be reached has been set, once the provinces have been consulted one after the other or in groups in order to establish what their aspirations are, in getting them together with a view to reaching an agreement. That is what happened in the case of the new agreement, and all the provinces signed it in the first six months of 1965.
The text, which I now hold in hand was published in French and English, and it is
March 31, 1966

available. As a matter of fact, it was distributed to all the members of parliament when it first came out in August.
What were the main differences between the first agreements signed in 1962 and the one signed early in 1965?
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
[English!
The old agreement was for the duration of two and a half years from 1962 to March 31, 1965. The new federal-provincial rural development agreement is for five years. The first agreement was implemented through a general agreement and a number of program agreements. The new one which I have in my hands is implemented through a single rural development agreement, and is thus much less cumbersome administratively.
In the first agreement there were no formal arrangements provided for continual consultation on programs. Under this new agreement there are formal administrative arrangements through joint advisory committees and new regional administrations to provide for continual joint consultation. Under the first agreement the maximum federal expenditure in one year was $20 million, for a total maximum contribution over two and a half years of $50 million. Under the second agreement the maximum federal contribution is $25 million per year, with a total federal contribution over five years of $125 million.
Under the first agreement programs for land use adjustment put less emphasis on programs to re-establish people affected. Under the new agreement there is a large increase in emphasis on programs to assist rural people to re-establish on new farms through farm consolidation or in new employment in areas where opportunities may be better.
Under the first agreement there was no co-ordinated approach to resource development by areas, although considerable studies were undertaken in areas which could lead to such programs. Under the new agreement there is new emphasis on the alleviation of poverty in rural areas by means of a global approach embracing all the resources of disadvantaged rural areas in an effort to provide new income opportunities and raise standards of living.
Under the first agreement there was a system of individual project audits by the federal administration as provinces submitted them. Under the new agreement there will be a new system for the administration of joint 23033-234
Rural Development
ARDA programs whereby the federal government and the province agree jointly on an entire program for a year or more and the entire program is considered.
This is a point which I am sure would have pleased the previous hon. member for Port Arthur. Under the first agreement Indian lands and Indian people were not excluded but were not particularly provided for. Under the new agreement there is special provision for the inclusion of Indian lands and Indian people under the ARD A program.
Under the old agreement there was provision for the establishment of rural development officers in the field and special training for such officers. Under the new agreement there is much greater attention paid to the training and establishment of rural development officers and the provision of facilities to carry out such training.

Mr. Speaker, the new spirit of the federal agreement on the economic rehabilitation of rural areas emphasizes the rural communities' human resources and on their physical resources as a whole. It can be said that it deals mainly with a rural labour program. Although we were not the first in that field, the new agreement was signed and negotiated before the manpower act was introduced last year. The agreement provides for a series of procedures to co-ordinate the new policy with that of the new department of Manpower. Second, the new agreement provides for the enlargement and consolidation of farms, which seems to us one of the major problems of the farming world in the rural areas. Third, it is an innovation in a way. On page 21 of the French text, the agreement provides for a special program for rural development areas. On page 22, it provides for the special rural development areas, that is to say that we are introducing for the first time a concept of planning at the regional level, a planning set up by co-ordinating the efforts of the provincial and federal governments.
It is an innovation in the field of administration in Canada. I would say that it concretizes for the first time the acceptance by the federal and provincial governments of the need for economic planning to eliminate in some areas of the country the concentration of low-income families and to eradicate unemployment and underemployment to improve the standard of living.
Not only have we innovated with that new agreement, but we have also improved our

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
working methods. In each province, there is and there can be a joint provincial committee to set up the program for the coming years, as explained on page 10 of the document I mentioned a little earlier. I quote:
It will be possible to set up joint advisory committees made up of five high officials of which three, including the chairman, will be appointed by the provincial minister and two by the federal minister.
Thus co-operation is being established at the beginning of the fiscal year before the programs for the whole year are elaborated at the provincial level.
In addition, we have organized and we are still organizing special meetings that enable us to take the initiative I referred to during the debate on the departmental estimates and also make the provinces aware of the importance of certain innovations in rural areas.
I shall not give you the list of all the meetings that took place recently. But let me tell you only that in the month of January we had

and I think I have the report with me-a meeting on land development and consolidation, so the provinces might benefit from part two of the agreement I mentioned earlier.
In co-operation with the provinces, we have designated rural development areas under part five of the new agreement.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)

Programs of resource development in low-income areas are provided for in this part of the agreement. The primary objective is to increase income and employment opportunities in rural areas where one half or more of rural families had an estimated income of less than $3,000 in 1961.
The areas have been jointly recognized by provinces in Canada as development areas and are as follows.
There then follows the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the prairie provinces and so on.

But, to me, in spite of everything, the most interesting among the innovations I referred to earlier is surely the establishment of special rural development areas. That concept is fully explained at pages 21-22 of the federal-provincial rural development agreement.
Until now, there was an agreement between the government of Canada and the provinces for the designation of such rural regions: Interlake, in Manitoba; the lower St. Lawrence valley and Gaspe, in Quebec; northern New Brunswick, Gloucester and Restigouche, in New Brunswick, and also the

Mactaquac region; Cape Breton and the northern area, in Nova Scotia; finally, the whole of Prince Edward Island.
This new concept is related to the second bill listed under the department for the setting up of an economic development fund. It allows the federal government to move in massively in those areas in Canada where there is unemployment and economic stagnation. We believe that in this way, the federal, in co-operation with the provinces, will contribute efficiently toward the solution of chronic problems in certain parts of the country.
I trust that, within the next few days, if not within the next few weeks, I shall have the pleasure, of informing the house that two agreements have been signed with the New Brunswick government, one dealing with the northern part of the province, and the other, with Mactaquac.
Hon. members will be pleased to see that, thanks to co-operation between the federal government and the government of New Brunswick, we are fighting off poverty efficiently in rural areas. Speaking of the war against poverty, there, Mr. Speaker, are concrete examples of what can be done when the federal and provincial governments co-operate.
I should have liked, this evening, had the agreement been signed, to give an overall view of the project to hon. members. However, I must limit myself to mentioning it only, but I am sure that within the next few weeks the house will be pleased to become acquainted with it.
Not only did we innovate in the general sense advocated by the member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) when he was minister in charge of that act, but we went even a bit further and set up what had been intended in the original act and which is the subject of an amendment in Bill C-152, namely a Canadian Rural Development Council.
The Council is composed of representatives of rural associations concerned with the problems which come under ARDA and of persons whose experience can be useful in the development of ARDA programs and projects.
When the Minister of Fisheries introduced the proposed resolution, I think there was some confusion in the minds of some hon. members. In Bill C-152, to amend the ARDA act, reference is made to that National Rural Development Council whose membership I outlined previously, although the ARDA agreements provide for committees at both
March 31. 1966

the provincial and local levels. But in this bill, we do not talk about the same type of committees.
Besides I will be able to give specific answers to hon. members who are interested in asking questions in that connection.
Therefore, in addition to what I have just said, we have in essence, almost continuous consultation with the provinces, meetings and exchanges and, at the end of April, I will be visiting the ministers of the four western provinces with ARDA officials. We will go and meet them in their own provinces, in their capitals, to discuss with their officials the application of the new agreement which came into force on April 1, 1965.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be too long. I hope I have been able, in those few minutes, to indicate to hon. members that we are amending this act only because we have to and, second, that we have no intention whatsoever of taking credit for this legislation away from anybody.
Later on I will move an amendment to this bill to link it definitively to the initials ARDA. When the time comes, I hope hon. members will be so kind as to allow me to move that amendment.
I hope at the end of the day, we will be able, as we were in 1961, to pass unanimously the amendments set forth in Bill C-152.
I thank the house for its undivided attention.
lEnglisM


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, would the minister explain now how he intends to move this motion?


Maurice Sauvé: As soon as we reach clause 2 I will move that the act be cited as the Rural Development (ARDA) Act, so that it will incorporate once and for all "ARDA", as was not the case before. But I will do that when we are in committee.


William Arnold Peters: May I ask the minister one question. If this bill is not now passed, is it the expectation of the minister that all that he has outlined cannot be accomplished?


Maurice Sauvé: That is so. The Department of Justice has given us written notice that unless this bill is passed we cannot go on entertaining projects in certain rural areas which have no agriculture. I mentioned earlier that this applied to outport regions in Newfoundland and certain parts of northern Saskatchewan and Alberta where there are 23033-2341
Rural Development
no possibilities for agriculture. It would be impossible for us to accept any projects unless the bill is passed, which means that we would be restricting the aims of the act. I am sure that originally, if this ruling had been made by the Department of Justice, the act would have been amended.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
If you will recall, there was a resources for tomorrow conference some time ago and at that conference there was a proposal to amend the act by deleting the word "agriculture". In 1961, people attending the resources for tomorrow conference were aware of the fact that the act was limited to projects in rural areas and it was impossible to undertake a number of other projects.


William Arnold Peters: Is the minister prepared to table the legal document that warrants this confusion?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not believe-


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel these questions could well be asked at the committee stage of this bill.


William Arnold Peters: Speaking to the point of order, I may say it has been the practice to ask questions, if the member speaking will accept those questions before resuming his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: Is the
hon. member for Medicine Hat rising on a point of order or a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, I thought you had recognized me to speak on this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei):: If the
hon. member wishes to speak on this motion, he will have an opportunity to do so later. I understand, as the result of an exchange of views at the commencement of the debate, that the Chair would recognize the hon. member for Provencher.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: I am
sure the members of the house were pleased to hear the statement made by the minister. This is the first time, since the government took office, that a comprehensive statement has been made on ARDA and the activities of this particular branch of the department. We recognized when the legislation was introduced, while we were the government, that it was a very important piece of legislation which was going to provide the means of assisting a good many areas in this country. The statement just made by the minister has

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
confirmed, to a large extent, this belief that we had at that time.
I was quite pleased to note the attitude of the minister. When he began to speak on this subject, I think he was a little embarrassed by the fact he was not here when he should have been. We can forgive him for that because I do not believe any of us expected the other bill to go through quite so quickly. I noted that as he warmed to his subject he made his remarks with more and more enthusiasm, indeed the same kind of enthusiasm the former minister had when he introduced the legislation and when he attempted to convince members how useful it could be in assisting rural development.
We are pleased to note that the minister has been imbued with this kind of enthusiasm and energy. I do not wish to offer any carping criticism of his activities in this particular field. There are, however, a few comments I should like to make in addition to those I have already made. When we introduced the legislation in 1961 there was a great deal of criticism because this was longterm legislation. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was one of those who offered that criticism at great length, as if the legislation could have been introduced any earlier. If the legislation is long range in nature, it has to start somewhere. I am glad to note the government has finally accepted the fact that this long term legislation was designed to do the very job the former minister of agriculture intended it should do.
I am pleased to note also that the minister has not fallen into that old habit of criticizing the former minister of agriculture for his activities. Indeed, I want to thank him for the kind words he used when referring to the former minister who introduced this legislation, and the enthusiasm with which he followed that up. This is a bad habit into which the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) has fallen and into which the former minister of agriculture, the former member for Cal. gary South, also fell. They seemed to feel their positions could be enhanced by criticising former ministers.
In so far as the proposed amendment of the act to change the name is concerned, I would have thought that if the minister were sincere, and I have every reason to believe he is, he could have accepted the suggestion that was made by the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Chatterton) when the resolution was before this house. He suggested

that the legislation be entitled the agriculture and rural development act, which would have in no way changed the initials of the act, which have become a household word across Canada.
If the intentions of the government in this regard were purely political, if they honestly thought they required an amendment to the act for political reasons or because it was such a greatly expanded act, they could have called it the greatly expanded rural development act, and this would have resulted in a typically Liberal set of initials. There would have been no question, then, that it was their legislation.
I am glad to see the minister has made provision for the development of this legislation in conjunction with the department of manpower. If results are to be achieved through this legislation, then it will be necessary to do this very thing and I want to congratulate him upon making this provision. I hope that in providing leadership for this legislation he is not going to take away the initiative of the local communities, which will be so necessary if the legislation is to be successful. I am sure those of us who have read about the experience of the United States in this particular field will remember that in the study by the Senate and the House committee it was pointed out that the government could well provide the direction, but if too much paternalism were offered, then in almost every case the rural development programs in the United States were doomed to failure.
You must insist that there is some direction, some leadership, but in the final analysis the initiative has to be taken by the local people. I hope the minister has not overlooked this very important aspect of rural development. I note that in outlining the new agreements that have been entered into with the provinces, he is providing the changes in line with the experience we have had with ARDA in the past few years. These changes are necessary.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
I notice there has been an ever increasing number of press releases emanating from the minister's office dealing with agreements being entered into with the provinces. It is interesting to note the wide variety of those agreements. In entering into these agreements I am sure the minister has discovered that the original type of agreement first entered into was somewhat different from what is necessary today. Largely I think this is the
March 31, 19S6	COMMONS
result of the many surveys which have been made. Again, I congratulate the minister in providing for most members of the house so comprehensive a report on the results of these surveys and the type of work that is being contemplated, and which is being effected throughout Canada.
We believe today as we did in 1961 that this legislation is broad enough to carry on the type of work that is required in order to assist the rural areas of Canada. We are grateful that the minister shows the type of enthusiasm, the type of drive and the type of initiative which is necessary in a minister in order to carry on the work of this legislation, and to do the work it was intended to do.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to And that the minister has had some advice as to why this act should be changed. I am one of those who was under the impression that the only reason this act was being changed was so that the house would agree to eliminate a Conservative bill and supplant it with a Liberal bill. I am not interested in doing that, as it does not seem to accomplish anything. I was interested to note that the minister made a very good explanation of some of the things that are taking place. As much as the previous speaker, I am interested in the policies which have been engaged in. I am, however, of the opinion that without the legal interpretation that the department may have given to the legislation under which we are operating under, this bill does absolutely nothing one way or another.
I listened to the minister's speech-I am always pleased to hear his speeches- and I was interested to note that in that speech he used almost the same wording he used in the speech of December, 1964-that this is not a new problem. There was an argument as to whether what is contemplated comes under agricultural development or the human resources problem in rural areas. As I say, it is interesting to note that these topics were discussed before, and it is also interesting to note that the topics he referred to were in the interpretation as it originally related to the ARDA program.
The projects that were then alluded to include such things as are reported in the magazine Western Canada Reclamation of June, 1963, including such things as study of resource use and development opportunities-and I might say that there is no text. Headings only are used. Also such things are mentioned as rural sociology-which I imagine
DEBATES	3689
Rural Development
is a fairly broad subject covering almost anything in terms of human resources in rural areas. Also mentioned are agricultural economics, including marketing-


Mr. Vincent:: Also school buses.


William Arnold Peters: Yes. Probably even school buses. Also mentioned is the program of employment. It refers to "Employment, labour, underemployment and vocational training needs." Lastly it lists farm employment and industrial development opportunities, which I assume covers the whole problem of employment not only in rural areas, but in some others.
I am not suggesting that all these thing are the same as were originally provided under the ARDA program. I think it is true that the Department of Agriculture of the Alberta government, which is negotiating at least half the contracts in that province, was under the impression that all these things could be negotiated under the act.
The minister in the January and February issue of Bulletin, which is a magazine of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, discussed this matter of the expansion into the manpower field in the rural economy, and indicated, as I understand, that there are no limitations to the ways in which the program could be implemented. The article on page 7 says:
Mr. Sauve reported that there are now close to 1,000 ARDA projects under way. In order to provide concrete illustrations of the ARDA program at work, he selected for presentation an outline of projects which are typical of each of the five major regions of Canada.
The minister then went on to cover most of the subjects that were set out originally in the act.
I do not intend to cover the whole ARDA program, Mr. Speaker. We are not interested necessarily in going over what has been done in ARDA, nor what has been done in each particular region of Canada under ARDA. We are interested in seeing here that the whole program of ARDA be extended as widely as possible to all parts of Canada, and that it be expanded in all fields where it is necessary, and where it is possible.
However, I do not think that this bill does anything one way or another. In my opinion it is just a waste of time. If there were a major legal requirement that we have to go through this procedure, then why not be honest about it?

Maich 31. 1966
Rural Development
I did not participate at the resolution stage, but I have read the discussions and I know the minister will be happy about the act. I hope he will be as happy as his colleague, the Minister oi Fisheries was, when he kept referring in that particular discussion to the fact that the ARDA program was going to be maintained.
Frankly, from anything that is in the bill that we have before us, I do not see that it is going to be maintained. The minister has dispelled the idea that all this is being done as a way to change the act, so that this might go on one side of the ledger rather than on the other side. I am speaking of the political ledger, which really has two pages. I am not on either one of the pages.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The problem in ARDA, as I see it, has been the lack of emphasis by the government, to date, with respect to the fields of research and statistics. It is not true that these have been included here. If you read the bulletin put out by ARDA in January of 1965, in Wildlife and Rural Development, you will find that there was considerable planning and investigation as to the potentials of it. Other publications have indicated examination and surveying that has been done in some areas of Canada. I believe ARDA is now in a position to assess the needs on a long term basis with respect to what can be done and in which fields it should be done.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the minister mentioned a second bill dealing with, as I interpret it, much broader regions, relating directly to large, low income areas in a special category. I can think of one in my own area, the Abitibi-Timiskaming region, and the area south of Restigouche in New Brunswick. There are a number of these areas which should be specifically named for additional help, apart from that provided through municipal, provincial and federal agreements implemented to date. If this is true I expect most hon. members will support the second bill; but since we are amending the ARDA act I think we should incorporate a separate section in it to include these areas in which I hope the federal government will give leadership, rather than counting on agreements to be made with the provinces.
Some hon. members are worried that under the second bill we will be setting up new boards and entering into new agreements, so that we will have more personnel and staff than projects. The labour costs of advisory boards will be extremely high, but I think

the purposes of the second bill could be incorporated in this one. I have read the second bill and seen nothing in it contrary to ARDA, except that it places emphasis on larger regions rather than on separate projects.
We now have an attractive motif for ARDA; but ARDA is somewhat like political parties which in the course of time are known by their initials rather than their names, with people tending to forget their real names. This is true of ARDA. Many people understand the implications of ARDA in their own communities, but do not care what its initials stand for. For this reason I hope its full name will be retained.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I must first congratulate the minister who is here tonight. We regretted his absence when the resolution was introduced. His speech tonight, and especially his enthusiastic delivery, seemed made to entice us to accept his arguments more readily.
There was some good in what he said tonight, but there were also things which we cannot support without reservation. On the whole, however, I believe it marks another step ahead for ARDA.
The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said earlier that the minister seemed to be repeating the speech he made in 1964. I think the hon. member for Timiskaming has forgotten that the subject was agriculture and that land is ploughed anew every year, each time yielding a new harvest.
Listening to the minister, I thought he merely wanted to inject some local colour in his beloved ARDA program for which he works so hard. That is why tonight, although he already knows my views on certain aspects of ARDA, I wish to congratulate him on his good work and especially on his sincerity. He cannot supervise every aspect of ARDA -perhaps he would do even better then-but as his own duties take up all his time, he can certainly not be blamed for all the sins of administration.
I reacted somewhat like the other members with regard to the bill introduced tonight to have the name of the act changed. Before listening to the minister's explanation, I wondered why the change in name was being requested, since the first act implemented in 1961 was known as ARDA or the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act, and it is now wished to call it the Rural Development
March 31, 1966

Act. I did wonder what was involved in the change.
The minister explained that the purpose is to cover certain fields of agriculture. But in my opinion, the previous act covered all fields of agriculture and all agricultural areas. In the past, this act has not only been applied to agricultural lands in designated areas, but even to crown lands and here and there.
That is why it seems to me, at first sight, that if it were only to extend the act, the original one had ample scope. But if it is for another reason, as the minister mentioned- justice-then I do not have to wonder any longer about the why and wherefore of this piece of legislation. But I do not think this is done with a view to playing politics and taking up the time of the house merely for a change in name. That is why we accept, on principle, these changes of name particularly if the abbreviation ARDA is retained because-the minister is well aware of this-the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act is never mentioned in our area, only ARDA. It is known under that name and I am very happy that the minister should have moved an amendment to retain this abbreviation.
I have noted something else in this bill, and I should like to bring this to the attention of the minister tonight.
A very close perusal of the amended legislation reveals that something apparently very simple is being presented, but this may affect the provinces and affect them disastrously.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I remember discussing with the minister and putting questions to him on the administration of the former ARDA legislation. I was always told the provinces made the decisions and brought forth the projects. In fact, the provinces were supplying the spark. Unless they went along, ARDA could not be implemented in any province. Is that still the case?
What surprises me is that the bill says:
The minister may cause to be prepared and undertaken, directly-
The "to be undertaken directly" scares me.
I heard that this also existed in the past. You always keep a little of the federative spirit. The minister attended the last conference in Quebec where co-operative federalism was discussed and I think, or rather I am afraid-I do not want to make any rash judgment-he came back with this spirit of federalism which is always used against the provinces, especially the province of Quebec.
Rural Development
The former act took away from the provinces any autonomy they had in the field of agriculture. Now the Quebec autonomy will no longer be protected.
When the minister takes the floor, I will deal with this matter which is most treacherous. When the federal government is empowered to impose something on a province, I do not know if you call it co-operative-federalism, but I call it centralization. And we are against centralization. That is what I wanted to point out to the minister.
Some hon. members may laugh, but I believe that under this section the federal minister could take action without the consent of the provinces.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Where?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Under ARDA. Look at section 2 (2).


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Keep on reading.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: (2) the minister may cause to be prepared or undertaken, directly or in co-operation-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: What can he cause to be undertaken?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -with the government of any province-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: What can he cause to be undertaken?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -with the government of any province or agency thereof, programmes of research and investigation respecting the more effective use and economic development of rural lands in that province.
He may cause to be undertaken various works and studies.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Research programs.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: This is the very point to which I want to draw your attention. First they take an inch of land, then a foot, a mile, two miles. If programs of research and investigation are to be undertaken, as they were in Gaspe, the decision is taken by the federal government. That is precisely what we do not want.
If there is research to be done, let the provinces come to an agreement with the minister on the joint programs.
My fear may be unfounded. I put the case to the minister; I am sure he has explanations to give us. But if we do not speak out, things will remain as they are and everyone will remain in the dark.

March 31, 1966
Rural Development
At first glance and in its present form I think the bill constitutes an infringement. I know it is comprehensive and written in good French. Research programs are a beginning and more will follow.
The provinces must have their say concerning those research programs. It seems very logical to me that the provinces should discuss the programs of research and investigation with the federal government, so as to maintain that spirit of co-ordination and discussion and so as not to leave the people of Quebec under the impression that the federal government is always imposing its wishes on the province.
That is precisely what the province of Quebec does not like, because it is related to research, to studies. Indeed, education belongs to Quebec. And then, it seems to me Quebec technicians and educators should also be able to meet the federal government technicians with regard to joint programs. Why should we not discuss educational programs in the same way?
That is all Quebec wants in order to protect itself. I wish to point out to the minister that not only should the provinces have a word to say about the matter, but they should also suggest what program they want implemented. In short, let them draw up the plans and present them to the federal government just as they do in the case of agricultural, drainage, or soil recovery programs. Then, no one could complain.
As for the advisory committees the minister mentioned, I believe it would be a good thing for each province to have one. But there again, the provincial advisory committee should not be made up of people imposed by the federal government, or subjected to its control directly or indirectly. It should be a truly provincial advisory committee.
I shall not dwell on the matter any longer for, as everyone else, I want the bill to pass as soon as possible. I may have a few questions about certain sections but, all in all, we are pleased. We are pleased because we do not shy away from progress, and we feel that this is a step forward for the ARDA program.
I hope the minister will adapt all those amendments, as was done in the past, when ARDA was passed, and that the rights and autonomy of the province of Quebec will be respected.

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
[English1


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when the resolution was before the house a few days ago I had the opportunity of saying a few words about our opinion in respect of the amendments contained in Bill C-152. At that time I queried the change of the name from the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act to the rural development act, because it appeared that there was no useful purpose to this change except, as I suggested then, it made it a Liberal rather than a Conservative act. I objected to this because the name ARDA has become a household word across Canada. I objected to taking up the time of this house for the purpose of doing something as unnecessary as that.
The minister has now promised that he intends to move an amendment to clause 2 as soon as we reach consideration of it. As far as I am concerned, such an amendment will satisfy in large measure the objection I voiced when I spoke before. Let me say also that I admire the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) for the good job he did in answering the questions we put to him at that time, in view of the fact that this act does not fall within the purview of his department.
We were pleased to hear the minister make his promise to move an amendment because the contents of this bill as it now stands are certainly not in keeping with the statements made over and over again by the Minister of Fisheries. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said on at least five occasions that the name ARDA was going to be retained. Some of us were very unhappy in our attempts to reconcile that threat with the contents of this bill. However, apparently that difficulty will be resolved when we reach our consideration in committee of clause 2 as a result of the promised amendment.
The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to the Western Canada Reclamation Association and said he did not know what it was, but he then proceeded to read some of the contents of its publication. I think the contents of that publication represent a clear manifestation of the very wide horizons and farsightedness that association has regarding the reclamation and conservation of soil and water. That association receives far too little recognition in Canada when one considers the useful work it performs. It is constantly concerning itself with long-range policies in an attempt to make sure that our soil and water
March 31, 1966



resources are both conserved and utilized beneficially, not only lor the immediate future but on a long-range basis. Perhaps the minister recognizes the value of some of the studies carried out from time to time by that association, but let me say that in my opinion it is a useful organization which receives little recognition for the many contributions it has made.
We will have time to discuss this bill in greater detail when we reach the committee stage of consideration, but there is one other matter I should like to discuss. In one of the last clauses of Bill C-152 there is reference made to advisory committees which I would more broadly term local committees. The minister is making a mistake if these advisory committees are to be confined to consideration on the basis of provincial advisory committees. It is my opinion that local committees could be very useful and could perhaps be the key to the initiation of development programs which will be most useful to communities. We should not be reluctant to give a great deal of recognition to these committees. If the members of such committees spend time away from home, working in an advisory capacity to provincial committees, consideration should be given to the paying of their expenses through the ARDA administration. The work that they will be doing will in fact be of assistance to the communities.
Possibly the best suggestions that can be made will be made by local committees. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) has said, if this kind of program is to be a success, it is essential that local feelings be taken into consideration. He also said that the experience in the United States has been that wherever there has been too much paternal activity with respect to the negotiation and development of programs there has been failure, and that the most successful programs have been those which were initiated at the local level by men and women who were completely familiar with the local problems of the community.
It seems to me there is sufficient authority in this bill to allow the minister to recognize these local committees and make arrangements for payment of their out-of-pocket expenses. I hope there will be no difficulty regarding the payment of these expenses so that these people will feel a little more free to devote their time, energy and talent to the discovery of the kind of programs that will be most beneficial to their local communities.
Rural Development


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of what the minister has said, I should like to make a very brief comment. While I did not hear all of his remarks, I should like to congratulate him for the very reasonable attitude he has taken. As a minister with the support of the new wing from Quebec, I think he has given us an example of how he is now able to undertake his responsibilities in a more flexible manner, and we are very appreciative of that fact.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
However, I think there is more in the question of a name than has been said. I understand that the minister indicated he had received a legal opinion suggesting that in order for the intentions and actions of the government to conform with the name of the legislation, there must be this change. But I would point out to him, because of the precedent that might be established, that the Parliament of Canada does have the right under the British North America Act to legislate with regard to matters of agriculture. It has no right to legislate initially with regard to matters of rural development.
I suppose the minister in the legal opinion he received was referred to section 95 of the British North America Act which says:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the Parliament of Canada.
In other words, initially the Parliament of Canada can legislate with regard to matters of agriculture. It cannot legislate other than by parliament authorizing the government to enter into an agreement with the province. For this reason and in order that the name and intent of the legislation shall conform with the British North America Act-and of course I believe we are all very anxious to make sure this is done-we should not delete from the legislation the word "agriculture".
I leave it at that, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me the minister is quite aware of my views. I believe they are based on sound constitutional practice, and a departure therefrom might not be as acceptable to the provincial governments as the change that is proposed by our party.

March 31, 1966
Rural Development


Mr.  T. S. Barnell@Comox-Alberni: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the remarks of the minister, in opening the discussion on second reading of this bill, with regard to what I might refer to as the non-agricultural activities under the ARDA program and some of the reasons for the introduction of the bill, with particular reference to the ruling he suggested had been provided byofficers of the Department of Justice. In the light of the minister's remarks I suppose I should describe this news release dated March 25,	1966, by the Department of
Forestry as one of his illegal press releases. I should like to refer to it. The release states:
Expansion of the ARDA sponsored fisheries development program in the Port au Port Peninsula area of Newfoundland has been announced jointly by federal forestry minister Maurice Sauv6 and Premier Smallwood in his capacity as provincial economic development minister.
On a federal-provincial cost-sharing basis, approval has been given to an ARDA expenditure of $60,000 for the provision of three 37-foot multipurpose. heavy powered wooden boats to be used to demonstrate improved fishing techniques.
Then it goes on to describe this project in somewhat greater detail. I believe this is probably the latest of a number of such projects which have been undertaken particularly in the province of Newfoundland as I recall various bulletins that have been issued under the authority of the minister. My particular interest in this question-and I would like the minister when he replies to give the house some explanation on this point-is the relationship between this type of activity under the ARDA program and the activity that is proposed under Bill No. C-145 which is now before the house for consideration. Clause 3 of Bill No. C-145 has this to say:
The Minister-
That is referring to the Minister of Fisheries.
-may undertake projects,
(a)	for the more efficient exploitation of fishery resources and for the exploration for and development of new fishery resources and new fisheries;
(b)	for the introduction and demonstration to fishermen of new types of fishing vessels and fishing equipment and of new fishing techiques; and
(c)	for the development of new fishery products and for the improvement of the handling, processing and distribution of fishery products.
Then in clause 5 of Bill No. C-145 it is proposed that the minister shall be authorized to enter into agreements with the provinces and other agencies for the construction and equipment of fishing vessels. To me at least this raises a question whether there is to be a duplication of activities between the Minister

of Forestry under the ARDA program and the Minister of Fisheries under the proposed act for the development of the commercial fisheries of Canada.
I am wondering whether in this particular field there may have developed an area of competition between these two departments and whether we may have something of a jurisdictional battle that will determine if there will later be a transfer of duties in which the Department of Fisheries will be amalgamated under the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In this connection I would mention that the fishermen's union in British Columbia in its recent convention passed, I believe, a resolution suggesting that we should have an eastern Minister of Fisheries and a western Minister of Fisheries. I am not at all sure that the present Minister of Forestry could qualify in their minds for the position of western Minister of Fisheries. Nevertheless, in the light of certain other discussions in the field of agriculture with regard to dividing jurisdiction I am wondering whether this may be the direction in which we are headed.
Apart from that matter, Mr. Speaker, I think we should have clarification on whether, assuming parliament approves a new commercial fisheries development act, the Minister of Forestry anticipates turning over this sort of project to the Department of Fisheries; and if not, what means or methods will be followed to determine what type of activity will be under his jurisdiction and what type of activity will come within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Fisheries?
I may say that apart from the general interest in this matter that arises out of the situation in Newfoundland-and I certainly have not quarrelled in my own mind with the fact that the ARDA program was engaging in this area of activity in Newfoundland, with its limited agricultural areas-I have been rather puzzled as to the authority under which ARDA, as I understand it-and my understanding has not been too detailed or extensive-enters into agreements of this type, which have no reference whatever to agricultural activity.
I also feel and have felt for some time that there may be real possibilities of combined land use development, perhaps in certain areas of my own constituency, where the combination of an ARDA-type program for land development, with participation by the Department of Fisheries in the improvement of salmon spawning, might be developed. If the minister can give us some indication how
March 31, 1966

*this multiple land use in areas of this kind will work out under the proposed amendments to the Agricultural, Rehabilitation and Development Act and in the light of the proposed new commercial fisheries development act, it might be very useful not only in our consideration of this bill but also in our later discussion of Bill No. C-145.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few comments on this particular bill. I was pleased to hear the minister's statement tonight, although it was pretty well based on the new five-year agreement. To start with I want to say that I am opposed to the change in name of this particular act as proposed in clause 2 of the bill, which would change the name of the act to the Rural Development Act. I think the original name was very fitting.
The original act was divided into three parts. It specifies the various types of projects and in section 2 deals with alternate uses of land. Section 3 provides for rural development projects, while section 4 provides for soil and water conservation projects. I believe that under those three headings almost any type of agricultural or rural development can be undertaken. Therefore I think the renaming of the act is quite unnecessary and very unfair, because ARDA has become a byword in Canada.
In the minister's brochure entitled "Federal-provincial rural development agreement, 1965-70", the introduction refers to ARDA a dozen times, which indicates how important is the expression ARDA and the emphasis that is placed on that particular expression. Therefore I hope that, whatever the minister does, he will keep that term.
In the brochure published by the Department of Agriculture in the fall of 1963 entitled "ARDA-a program geared to problems, possibilities and progress in the development of natural resources and income and employment opportunities", the general objectives of the program are set out on page 4, as follows:
All of ARDA's primary objectives fall within the general area of conservation, comprehensive resource development, and community development. Possible projects under ARDA fall into four broad categories:
1.	Projects for alternative uses of land,
2.	Projects for soil and water conservation,
3.	Rural development projects-assistance to rural communities to develop and diversify their resources and to create income and employment opportunities,
4.	A wide range of research projects-particularly social and economic research, to uncover avenues to improving conditions in rural areas.
Rural Development
I think, Mr. Speaker, that under those four headings you can undertake almost any type of project, certainly in rural Manitoba.
I have great faith in the original act and in what it will do for a great many rural areas in Canada. The minister referred to the Interlake area of Manitoba, which is in my riding and is a designated area. It was declared a test area on March 15, 1963 and later that year was declared a designated area. There has been considerable development in that area. The minister has been out there so I know he is familiar with the Interlake area of Manitoba.
I just want to show some of the projects which have been approved in Manitoba under that particular program, Mr. Speaker, and there are a wide variety of them. For instance, there was a project to appraise the commercial fishery, to determine the economic benefits which could be derived by the rural people of the Interlake area. Another project was a study of ethnic group values in the Interlake region to determine the basic values of ethnic groups with respect to receptiveness, adjustment and change. Then a general economic survey was made of the Interlake region to take inventory of and to analyse regional resources. Another project was a study of the feasibility of establishing industries that are suited to the Interlake region. A very large variety of projects have been approved, and I feel that the old act is wide enough to undertake any type of project in rural Manitoba.
I should just like to refer to the new agreement. The minister referred to section 4, which reads as follows:
The national contribution of Canada shall be:
(a)	an amount of $125 million to be allotted to the provinces, the expenditure of Canada not to exceed $25 million in any one fiscal year;-
The minister pointed out that this was a great increase over the original agreement, and rightly so.
(b)	a Special Fund for Rural Economic Development of $50 million, as described in Section 37 of this Agreement.
I take it that this $50 million is the $50 million referred to in Bill No. C-151. I had hoped that that provision would be incorporated in the bill presently before us, because I think it would certainly fit in with this bill. The $50 million is designed to help designated areas, and I would take it that an area like the Interlake area of Manitoba would fit into that particular category, if they qualified for assistance under that act.

March 31, 1966
Rural Development
I just wanted to let the minister know that I am very interested in this particular program and I am glad that he is taking a real interest in it. However, I would certainly prefer to see the phrase "ARDA" perpetuated.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I think it only fit and proper to say a few words on this bill and the proposed changes to the act in view of the fact that some of us put in a tremendous amount of work in the initial stages in bringing this act into being. I have followed it with great interest during the past few years and I certainly intend to continue following the success of ARDA.
I should say to the minister, since he has chosen to rename the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act so that it would be known as the Rural Development Act, that I see no purpose in the move. Would a rose smell as sweet by any other name? Actually, I think he now has a title which will not fit.
The ARDA program with respect to projects, is divided into two parts. One section has to do with area rehabilitation and the other with individual farm rehabilitation. Area rehabilitation is primarily carried on under contracts with the individual provinces, but this requires a program. I should like to have the attention of the minister while I am taking to him, if he does not mind.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Farm rehabilitation is a different matter. You cannot rehabilitate farmers by some broad, over-all program; you have to get down to the level of the farmer and co-operate with him. You need a man who is trained in farm management, who can sit down with the farmer and work out a plan. You may have to buy adjacent land to make an economic unit. Then perhaps loans will be needed. The cost is tremendous, but it is worthwhile. You have to undertake a farm management study of the individual farm. You must give personal attention, supervised attention to this plan for the individual farm. As yet, I have seen no indication that such a program has been in operation or that the minister intends to put such a plan into operation. I have not seen any indication he intends to adopt a program for the rehabilitation of the farm in Quebec or elsewhere.
There has been no attempt to try to get agricultural graduates or university trained men in farm management to handle these
[Mr. Stefanson.l
programs. The minister has not brought forward any plan to take care of the individual farm. He has been looking at the area as a whole. I would be happy if the minister could show me any attempt whatsoever to solve the problem of the individual farm in the programs adopted since he became minister.
Let me say that the word marginal has been used in this bill. I should like to ask the minister what he means by marginal. Marginal may mean one thing in Quebec and it will certainly mean another thing in Ontario. Out west, marginal will mean still another thing. This definition may depend on what you can raise on that land or the income you derive from it. Where do you get the word marginal; marginal to what?
Then, the minister has gone a step further and has referred to lands which are submar-inal. If you do not know what marginal means, how can you tell what submarginal means? I would defy the minister to give me a definition of marginal lands in such a broad act. He cannot do it. He is not an economist, and I am. I am telling him, for his own benefit, that he cannot define the word marginal in a broad act such as you have here. I hope the minister gets along all right with this provision, but he is going to be in trouble when he goes out on the hustings. He is going to be asked what marginal land is, and he had better be ready to answer the question.
Let me say a word about soil conservation. This is an important aspect of an agricultural program. I was hoping that this minister, and this government, would undertake such a program in co-operation with the provinces. I was hoping such a program, in turn, would have particular application to raising the productivity of various agricultural lands. If such a program were carried out as it was in the United States, it could be tied into other types of programs by which the pattern of land use could be changed. Soil conservation programs have been tied in to programs to restrict certain crops. I do not know whether the minister's ideas have progressed to that point or whether he has that sort of thing in mind. I doubt if he has. However, if he is going to get into the field of conservation, and if he is going to get the co-operation of the farmers, he will have to get into such things as contour plowing, in order to prevent land from being washed down into the creeks and rivers. Farmers will have to plant soil conserving crops and the minister will have
March 31, 1966

to encourage them to do so. These soil conserving crops may need to be plowed under in order to conserve moisture.
. Is the minister going to get into conservation programs which will offer payments to the farmers to do that sort of thing? It has been done elsewhere. It has been done in the United States. Are you going to go about these things on an individual farm basis or are you going to put conservation into effect in an area generally? Is the minister simply thinking of conservation on the basis of spreading some commercial fertilizer that may be required by a particular farm?
I understand that the minister is a lawyer from Montreal and perhaps does not know too much about farming-I am sorry, the Magdalen Islands, I stand corrected. I say to him that he should go across Canada. He should come out to Alberta, where my riding is, and I will show him the things about which I am talking. I will show him some of the work we want done by ARDA. This idea of concentrating on one part of Canada or one corner of Canada, is not good because ARDA was developed to have a broad application to the whole country. We would like to see the minister come out and become familiar with our problems. I will rest the argument at that point, sir, provided the minister will explain what he means by marginal.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-sioke):: I should like to intervene briefly in this debate to speak about the change in name of the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. If the minister thought it over, Mr. Speaker, perhaps he would be happier if the agricultural part of the name were left; and if his amendment were to the effect that the legislation should be called the agriculture and rural development act. Certainly in British Columbia the name of the act is not yet a household term. There has been a feeling in that province that projects have been approved very slowly and rather rarely. I believe this situation is changing. It certainly has changed in the constituency I represent. We have 37 major projects under way now, having to do particularly with irrigation.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The Vernon News of February 28 announced an extensive rebuilding of the Vernon irrigation system at a cost of $6 million. This project is a most worth-while one. Then again on March 24 two smaller
Rural Development
projects were approved, again in the north Okanagan. There was the Woods lake improvement district irrigation system and the Grandview irrigation system. The local newspaper, in reporting this development, does not use the abbreviation but refers to the act in its full, although cumbersome name, Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act. This may be just a wish on the part of this very fine newspaper to be extremely exact and proper. Also, I think it is an indication that ARDA had not been until recently sufficiently involved in the Okanagan area, or at least, it may be an indication that it had not been involved there as much as it may have been in other parts of Canada.
I think, were the word "agricultural" to remain in the name of the act, it would be a good idea, because it would provide emphasis on the practical as well as the theoretical aspect.
I should think in agricultural development, as in irrigation projects that I have outlined, you always have the assurance that this is of immediate benefit to the district, and the name would make it immediately obvious.
The announcements of agricultural development can be hailed by anyone interested in the welfare of the districts involved, and what is then obvious is that the whole concept of rural development benefits by having a very close relationship to agricultural tradition and agricultural enterprise in Canada.
The efforts that will be projected and undertaken that are solely rural development and that have no direct connection with agriculture will, I think, not necessarily always but very frequently, be of a more controversial nature.
We have had various projects outlined, some of which have been criticized this evening as being altogether too nebulous for an organization, or for an act such as this to be considering. What has been outlined in this house today justifies that these measures should be taken. In fact, I think the act should be administered so as to involve enterprises that are daring, that are original, and that are unusual for agricultural development across the country. I think it is absolutely essential that the whole thing remain as imaginative as possible, to that end.
At the same time I believe that ARDA should retain its strong and practical agricultural base that is now being so well administered in the north Okanagan region. I think that the minister would be well advised not just to tack ARDA on the end of the name,

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
but to include the word "agricultural" in the very title of the act itself.
I think there might be danger in future of people being critical of some things that are planned to be undertaken. They might wonder what had happened to the act they knew as ARDA, when really, it would still be around. I think it would be a good thing for the people who will be concerned to know that there is continuing development going on under this most worth-while agricultural enterprise.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: cannot resist saying a few words on this type of legislation. All members of our group support the principle and purpose of this type of legislation. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I rise to speak this evening as a rancher, as a tree farmer and as a man interested in rural development, and particularly as a man interested in the welfare of our small communities; also, as president of the Canadian Tree Farmers Association. What more can I say?


An hon. Member:: A wealthy farmer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This legislation has the support of large numbers of organizations in this country. It has the support of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, the farmers unions, the Western Reclamation Association, many conservation groups, many community organizations, the Christmas tree farmers and the Canadian Tree Farmers Association.
At this point I might say that we held our annual meeting last Saturday in Ottawa. The minister sent a very nice message to the meeting, and the members present asked me to convey their best wishes to him, also their congratulations, and to wish him well in all he undertakes in the administration of this act.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman opposite never opens his mouth without subtracting from the sum total of human wisdom.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John B. Stewart: Would the hon. member permit a question? May I ask the hon. gentleman, if he agrees that the principles of this legislation are so good, will he not let the bill pass the house so that the people of Canada may have the advantage of it.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The principles of application are excellent, but I question the administration. There have been excellent agreements signed with various provinces. Personally I was very pleased that the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke (Mr. Johnston) referred to the agreements signed with the government of B.C. for the renewal of irrigation projects in southeastern B.C., and in particular in the Okanagan district. This is appreciated by the fruit growers, the local farmers and the communities directly concerned, but I believe this type of thing cannot be undertaken on the basis of a crash program. The legislation has got to be developed as the result of experience, research, planning, and the participation of a large number of people.
I should now like to draw to the minister's attention a few of the suggestions we discussed at the meeting we held last Saturday. We are very much in favour of combining agricultural activities and forestry activities of this type under one department, as they were formerly. In European countries, in Sweden, Norway and Great Britain they found a very close relationship between the development of agriculture and the development of wood lot ownership, or forestry of this type, in relation to the rehabilitation of rural communities, and their maintenance and improvement. There is a sort of joint objective in that respect. In passing may I say we were very pleased to see that both these subjects are going to be discussed by the same committee of the House of Commons at this session.
Next, there has to be a great deal of co-operative research undertaken by the federal and provincial governments, by the universities and other organizations. In this connection I say to the minister, do not overlook the contribution that the average, shall I say, intellectual rural observer may make to rural administration. There is many a man who does not have a college degree, who does not belong to the intellectual elite, but who can offer very sound suggestions to those who have had those opportunities. We should encourage in every way possible the smaller communities to participate on an administration basis with respect to the operations of this act.
There must be a great deal of planning over a long period of time. It is not a question of a crash program. We have to

March 31, 1966

develop this program as the result of experience and by carefully approaching the planning on a regional and community basis, after agreement has been reached in principle in the agreements signed with the provincial governments.
We also discussed the question of the advisory committees, and I might inform the minister that our organization is intending to co-operate with the Canadian Federation of Agriculture in offering any advice the minister would welcome from these organizations in the administration of this act and in relation to particular circumstances in any particular community.
In addition, we have to have much wider publicity and better public relations. We have to get a larger number of people understanding the principles of co-operation and their application to an act of this kind. That is going to require improved public relations on the part of the minister's department. In some respects we have fallen down in that direction.
I would suggest that not only is it necessary for the minister and his officials to address bodies of national organizations but, so far as possible, to get their men out in the field in the various provinces so that the presence of the federal government in the application of the act is felt right in the rural communities.
As I said before, there is much room for research on a regional community basis; and I have one other suggestion to make before I sit down which, as a matter of fact, comes from the organization the presidency of which I have been entrusted with for another two years. It has been endorsed by that organization and by several members of the faculties of universities throughout Canada. In short, there is a need for a college of conservation.
I see that this idea has almost been started in Quebec by some summer school. I do not know whether it receives a grant from the provincial government or not, but it is a summer school to teach the principles of conservation in relation to the development of the rural community.
I am not suggesting any large expenditure of money, but I do suggest there is a place in Canada for a college of conservation, erected under the correct circumstances, with the right environment, with provision for the teaching of, say, 50 students, including overseas students in Canada, and which might have a skeleton staff of not more than
Rural Development
10-maybe less; maybe five-I do not know. Such a college could ask the co-operation of universities across Canada for guest speakers to attend on the basis of lectures to be given for a week or 10 days on particular subjects. In my opinion this would be inexpensive.
In the first instance we have the material. We have the personnel in the various universities and organizations interested in the development of this act and its administration. In fact, it might be possible to offer some sort of diploma, or associate diploma, for study extending over a year, 18 months or two years. I am not clear at the moment as to the length of the course, but it should be something that could be given to young men and women interested in the development of rural rehabilitation in this country. This would provide an opportunity for a large number of young men, who are not concerned with going to universities and having academic qualifications, but who are interested in the problem and who would be able to take advantage of this, more or less, vocational training.
It would also serve the purpose of giving overseas students an idea of our approach to the principles of conservation. It would give an opportunity to many young Canadians to serve Canada and their own communities, and to serve them according to the principles of conservation and co-operation in the administration of the act itself. With those few words I resume my seat trusting that hon. members opposite realize I have not trespassed too much on the time of the house.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words about this measure. Coming from a province which, as the minister well knows, has taken a great interest and done much research, and launched many studies in this field, a province the land of which is perhaps more fully utilized for agricultural purposes than any other portion of the country, I could not but be interested in this measure. I would like to say in passing that, so far as I have been able to observe, the minister has shown an interest in the problems concerned, and I wish him well in his endeavours.
I am not quite content with the word rural. I do not want to elaborate on my views at this stage of the discussion, but I wonder if it might not in certain areas be a bit exclusive in a sociological sense.
The reason I rise is to commend an initiative in this very important field of ARDA, as

March 31. 1966
Rural Development
we have called it up until now and probably will continue to call it. It is a most imaginative piece of legislation which some of us have long felt has been languishing, and if a change of name will bring it greater fame and emphasis, I will go along with that.
Of all the things that were brought before the house in the years when our party was in power, this was one of our finest contributions, and if the present administration wishes to change the name in order to make it a more imaginative and attractive policy, that is fine, although I do have reservations on the word rural.
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am happy that here in legislation we have underscored what is a Dominion initiative in agriculture. I am speaking in the broad sense of agricultural jurisdiction, which is a concurrent jurisdiction; and here we have underscored, in section after section, a dominion initiative, with the dominion co-operating with the provinces. This is very important and most welcome. If there is anything I have noted in recent days that has disturbed me, it was the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), as reported in the press a few days ago, that the problem of opting out would be no longer very important because the Dominion would not be opting in. In this country, with its great diversity, especially in economic fields, the initiative of a dedicated, concerned, and informed Dominion government is of the essence.
If there is anything we can do to support the minister in making this legislation more meaningful, in making the Dominion initiative more meaningful and in supporting his efforts to elicit the co-operation of the provinces, I am sure we are all for it. We do not want to see the Dominion opting out of programs which are of benefit to the whole country. To the extent that this legislation reflects the Dominion's desire to stay in, to pioneer, to initiate, then I commend it, and commend the minister, and will support him on the suggested amendments.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up very much of the time of the house this evening. However, I wish to express my interest in this act and the purpose for which it was founded several years ago by the former Conservative administration. I, of course, was not a member of this house at that time; but we looked on it with interest and favour, especially in our part of the country, because

at that time I happened to be the mayor of the town of Napanee when we were faced with a very acute water shortage, and just such a scheme as this was put into effect by the federal, provincial and municipal partnership. This turned our dearth of water into a plentiful supply, the most important thing that mankind needs.
I have a clipping here from the Napanee Beaver which I thought I would have time to bring to the attention of the minister because I know he would be interested in this illustration of what can be done when three authorities unite in such a scheme as this to increase a municipal water supply and to reforest these watersheds, of which we have many across Canada, which are in a condition which is a detriment to our country today. Development is needed in these areas. What a wonderful opportunity we have now. I speak from experience, because I am one of the political fathers of the Second Depot Lake dam in the upper reaches of the Napanee River which is living proof that ARDA and conservation will work and that our country's resources which have long been latent can be developed.
Let us all get together and make this work. I have a few more remarks, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to see the government attempting to change the name of this act. ARDA is a byword across the country already, because it did make significant progress under the other administration. It probably has been marking time since then, but I hope in due course it will make as much progress as it started out to do.
The letters ARDA represent what one might term a mellisonant acronym. I ask the minister, why now change that acronym, that handy term ARDA. I do not know any reason for change. Some say it is retaliatory action on the part of the government. This reminds me of the great rivalry between Rome and Carthage that we learned about in ancient history. The Romans hated the Carthaginians and their policies so bitterly that by the time they did overthrow them they tore every building down in Carthage and then plowed the ground, so that never again would there be any identity with the name Carthage. It looks to me as though that is what the Liberal government is attempting to do here; that is, to eradicate all that stands of the title of the good legislation which was put through in the period from 1957 to 1962.
Again I reiterate my profound and active interest in this act and what it will do. Of
March 31. 1966

course, primarily it is rural assistance. I have here a letter from a farmer who was hard pressed, like thousands of other farmers in Canada today. I should like to quote two lines, where he says:
We don't want to be able to borrow a lot of money from the government to live on; we want to be able to earn it.
This is what we should get from this legislation, an opportunity for the farmers and the working people to earn, so that they do not have to sign huge mortgages and commit themselves for the rest of their lives to debt. All they want is just a little help. Every rural area, with help from ARDA perhaps can turn the tide economically for these farmers. This man also says:
Most farmers I know wouldn't be able to pay interest on $30,000 or $40,000, let alone paying on principal.
That of course is true. He says:
In our community a large percentage of farmers or their wives are working off the farm because they can't survive on the income the farm brings; however they are still producing milk, beef and pork and they are doing it at a loss because they don't depend on the farm any more for a living.
So much for the case in respect of ARDA, and for the speedy going ahead with what is meant by the words of this act. From my observation of the areas adjacent to my own area, I know that rural Canada needs development of our watersheds for the conservation of water. Not so far away from Ottawa where the minister, I hope can go and see it at first hand is the development of the Na-panee valley. The Napanee river, of course, is a river which runs mostly in the counties of Frontenac and Lennox and into the Bay of Quinte and Lake Ontario. I am sure the minister knows where it is.
Rural Canada needs, first, development of all our watersheds for the conservation of water; second, reforestation of adaptable forest lands in a productive manner to ensure continuous annual production of timber and wood products after a certain long-term growth period; third, in the areas of these watersheds where soil is suitable for agriculture, clearing and restoration of the old fields must take place; fourth, grants for the use of heavy machinery for land clearing, such as clearing of principally scrub brush, must be available, and also for tile drainage of these cleared fields where this type of drainage is necessary.
In addition grants, then, in turn, are needed for fertilizer and any other services necessary to put these lands into production. Fifth,
Rural Development
in turning these regions of our country into productive lands, which now are unproductive or close to being a non-productive liability, we need the advice and services of our top engineers, agricultural scientists and silviculturists. The members of the house can see how this will create a tremendous amount of employment, prefessional employment of a very high calibre, because very high calibre of people are required to help us plant and take care of these plantations. With the type of management which is envisaged, perhaps the farmers will go on farming as they never farmed before on rejuvenated land. Deeds to the land quite properly could be retained by the rural population. There is no advantage to uprooting all the farm population and sending the people to the cities where probably they would have a lower level of living than in the country. They would be able to stay where they are and make a living off land which would be more productive than it formerly was.
Then there is the responsibility of the government, through the ARDA directorates and co-ordinating communities, to render scientific soil and crop adaptability studies, and even marketing adaptability studies, to make sure that the right varieties and species of crops are grown on this rehabilitated land. We are about to celebrate our first centennial, and this ARDA proposition is a long term project; it will take at least half a century to put it into full operation. It made a good start under the Conservative administration. We need not waste time or energy changing the title of the act. Let us go to work and make this proposition develop.
There is also a recreational aspect of ARDA. Already we have recreational interests which are anxious to obtain loans in the Lauren-tian area. In my office now I have a letter from persons who are interested in starting a skiing establishment on land that is not worth very much now. It is proposed to have ski jumps, trails, mechanical lifts and so on. This is in an area in Renfrew county on marginal land and in a beautiful hilly location. I have referred this suggestion to the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) and the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins). I hope this type of scheme can come under the scope of this new act and be placed early on the agenda of things that can be done. The operation of these kinds of resorts is an industry which provides employment and can certainly be of assistance to these remote undeveloped regions of our country.
Rural Development

March 31, 1366
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
There are many other points we could refer to, but we hope to have an opportunity to discuss them at another time. I thank the hon. members of this house for the courtesy they have shown in listening to the points I have put to them. In conclusion, I again say, let us get on with the job of making ARDA work as a measure increasing the prosperity of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by Mr. Turner for Mr. Sauve, seconded by Mr. Cote (Longueuil) that Bill C-152, an act to amend the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act-


Mr.   Kindi@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to interrupt on a point of order and ask the minister whether he intends to answer some of the questions we have posed? There still is time for him to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether at this time, the question having been put to some extent, the minister should be allowed to speak.


Mr.   Kindi@: I was up before the question was put, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we should allow the minister to speak, but if he does he will close the debate.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to answer hon. members' questions when we reach consideration on item 1 at the committee stage, but if hon. members prefer that I do so now I will be pleased to comply.
It must be clear from what I said in opening the debate this evening that Bill C-152 is strictly of an administrative nature. Had it not been for an interpretation given by the Department of Justice regarding the restrictive nature of the original bill we should not be considering the bill now before us. I trust hon. members understand clearly that that is the only purpose of this bill. This will be apparent from a reading of the explanatory notes in the bill, which are in part as follows:
The general purpose of these amendments is to extend the application of the act to all rural areas in Canada where projects of the nature provided

for under the act can be advantageously undertaken whether or not the area in question is in whole or in part an agricultural area.
This amendment removes the reference to agricultural lands from the long title and eliminates the preamble which is considered to restrict the application of the act.
The underlining of the words in the bill clearly indicate where the amendments are to be made. At the risk of being repetitious, let me say again that the purpose of this bill is purely administrative. There is no intention at all to amend this very beneficial legislation which was passed in 1961 under the previous administration.
In my opening remarks I paid tribute not only to the minister of agriculture originally responsible for this act, but also to the minister before him who introduced this legislation by way of a report to a cabinet committee. I refer to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness). We have proposed this bill in order to comply with a request from the Department of Justice.
Having regard to the word ARDA, which in French we call SIGLE, after discussion on March 18 when the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) introduced the resolution and the remarks of hon. members of parliament at that time, we decided definitely to retain that name. On March 18 the Minister of Fisheries said, as recorded at page 2886 of Hansard for that date:
It is proposed that the term "ARDA" continue to be used to refer to the Act and the program-
We originally proposed to the drafters of this bill that the name ARDA should be included in the new title but we were informed that this was not necessary. However, because of the remarks of hon. members on March 18, as I said earlier I propose to move an amendment to clause 2 in the bill in order that the name ARDA will remain.
I hope that all hon. members will accept my explanation that the only purpose of this bill is an administrative one. I thank all hon. members for their interest in this bill, most of whom have referred to the continued use of ARDA. Perhaps I may be allowed to reply first to the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).

May I point out to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) that the constitution itself justifies the federal government to intervene in the field of agriculture. Indeed, section 95 of the constitution authorizes the
March 31, 1966

Intervention of the federal government in rural matters.
But what is more important, in my opinion, and what has escaped the attention of the hon. member, is the fact that Bill C-152 does not add anything to the original bill. What he now blames us for undertaking already existed in the original bill and we have not taken any new initiative.
Besides, it is strictly in the field of research and inquiries that the federal minister can have programs and projects prepared and undertaken directly or in co-operation with the government of any province. That is strictly limited to inquiries.
If the hon. member for Roberval would read over the federal-provincial agreement on the economic rehabilitation of agricultural areas, he would see at once that all projects are to be undertaken jointly and must essentially originate from the provinces.
As far as the advisory committee is concerned, we have established ours at the federal level and the provinces can very well institute theirs.
The advisory committee which we have instituted at a federal level, is made up of about 30 people, and I shall list them because I think it is important to show that we never lost sight of the need to include in that Canadian Rural Development Council the best elements in the field, people who as a result of their functions in organizations or by their reputation, can best contribute to improve the legislation and its administration.
And I should not want anyone to think that when we consulted the organizations or when we made those appointments, we had any other concern but that of the good and the administration of the ARDA legislation.
I am going to give the names and hon. members will be able to see for themselves: the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture; the president of the National Farmers Union; the director of research of the Agricultural Economics Research Council of Canada; the director of research of the Canadian Welfare Council; the vice president of the Canadian Forestry Association; the editor in chief of the newspaper La Ferme; the president of the Canadian Wildlife Federation; the manager of the South East Kelowna Irrigation district, Western Canada Reclamation; the manager of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce; the director of the Co-operative Union of Canada; the director of research of the Atlantic
Rural Development
Provinces Economic Council; the chairman of the Indian-Eskimo Association; the general director of the Confederation of National Trade Unions.


Some hon. Members:: Carried, carried.


Maurice Sauvé: A representative of the Fisheries Council of Canada; a lady representative of the National Council of Women of Canada; a representative of the Federation des caisses populaires-


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Maurice Sauvé: And so on. I see that my hon. friends have regained confidence and that we may now, with leave of the house, proceed to the committee stage.
However-
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
[English1
I should like to give a definition to the hon. member for MacLeod (Mr. Kindt). I wish to give him a definition of marginal land and submarginal land, although I would tell him immediately that we are not using these words any more and have replaced them by the words "more efficient use and economic development of rural lands". However, under the old jargon marginal land for agriculture is land that will not give adequate returns to labour and capital invested in it for agriculture, and submarginal land is clearly not economic in agriculture. Those are the definitions and I hope they satisfy the hon. member.


Mr. Danforih:: Mr. Speaker, before the minister resumes his seat I wonder whether he would answer a short question. If he does, it will perhaps not be necessary to ask it on clause 1 in committee. Would the minister in very short terms give the house some indication of the projects that are non-agricultural, to which he referred. I believe he spoke of Newfoundland, the maritimes and northern Saskatchewan in this connection. I think the house would be interested to know the type of project which could be classified as nonagricultural.


Maurice Sauvé: There was development in certain outports of Newfoundland, in which there is clearly no agriculture at all. They were limited to fisheries development projects and programs. I referred to specific cases of that nature.

March 31. 1366
Rural Development


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister before resuming his seat could answer the question I raised about overlapping jurisdiction in the area of fisheries.


Maurice Sauvé: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) raised problems in connection with the overlapping of various departments. Hon. members will notice that Bill No. C-145 is now being introduced, so this kind of program did not exist before. This is why we have entertained such programs. In any case, we never accept a project from any province unless it is approved by the federal department or departments involved. We cannot accept projects if a federal department thinks the province can do it better. In most instances these projects under ARDA are implemented by the provinces themselves, which means that the federal government does not have to set up the machinery to implement them. But there can be no overlapping because we do not accept any project unless it is approved by the federal department or departments concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was opposed to this bill, and still am, for the very simple reason that I do not believe it is at all necessary. I am concerned about two matters. I have just received a copy of the French version of the bill. The French version has absolutely no relationship to the English version, no matter what we do with the terminology. I cannot read what it says in French so I shall not attempt to do so.


An hon. Member:: The initials are different, too.


William Arnold Peters: I hope it means the same thing, although as far as the initials are concerned I suppose it was very difficult to get "ARDA" out of the original bill in French and the minister has indicated that in the province of Quebec they call it something else.
If the Department of Justice advised the minister that the bill had to be amended in this way, I think the minister has an obligation to explain to us why the Department of Justice allow the building of fishing boats under the program we call ARDA, when fishing was not even mentioned in the original bill. There is no legitimate connection between fishing and rural development and

agriculture. I have no objection to this program dealing with fishing. However, I have read the catalogue for the past six months and am very surprised to learn that most of the research in the province of Newfoundland as well as in several other provinces has been in connection with the fishing industry. They have even dealt with the construction of fishing vessels, the purchase of gear, the establishment of co-operatives and other matters that are concerned with the fishing industry.
I am opposed to making this change because we have not been given a satisfactory explanation of the advice given regarding the name of the previous act being in contravention of the law. The legal officers of the Department of Justice have apparently advised the minister that we would be in a better position if the name were changed, but I really do not understand the reason for this advice being given. I am very satisfied with the minister's explanation, but I do not understand why we were in contravention of the law in regard to the previous act and how our position is improved by making this change. Perhaps there is not an explanation. It is probably a highly technical, legal explanation.
A number of sections of ARDA involve almost completely unrelated things at the present time. There are the federal-provincial shared programs concerned with the development of a particular aspect of ARDA. Another section of the act refers to research which can be undertaken, initiated, financed and operated by the federal government. In view of this, Mr. Chairman, I wonder why the minister is opposed to including Bill No. C-151 as another clause of this bill.


Maurice Sauvé: Precisely for the reason dealt with by many members on the other side of the chamber. We do not want to alter the original act except by changing the word "agricultural" to "rural". We wanted to keep the same act because we felt it was a good act, and we were introducing a new measure for some other purposes, although they are related to the ARDA administration. We never had any intention of changing the original act, and that is why we presented amendments strictly in accordance with the request of the Department of Justice. I give my word that otherwise there would have been no amendment. As the minister concerned, I have no intention at all of changing the act.
March 31, 1966

[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is true some of the projects were accepted, but the cabinet undertook to present these amendments. Otherwise we would not have carried the projects mentioned by the hon. member. It was only when we as a government undertook to present amendments to the act that those projects could be accepted, and that was the only reason.


William Arnold Peters: Now that the minister is amending the act, is he not of the opinion that Bill No. C-151 is only an extension of the principle, though into a slightly different field? There really should not be objection to adding this additional section.


Maurice Sauvé: Under the agreements which have been signed and which are an extension to the act, the usual method of contribution is 50-50. Under the rural development fund there is no such limitation. We have more initiative under Bill No. C-151 than we would normally have under this federal-provincial rural development agreement. This is one of the reasons we are presenting Bill No. C-151, though there are a number of other reasons I shall give when we reach that bill.


William Arnold Peters: Is it not true that these agreements which have been mentioned under the program are only one section of the act? The financial arrangements are entirely the responsibility of the federal government. There is really no argument against adding this section because of the similarity. I am not suggesting you include the section dealing with the 50-50 arrangements, but the other sections provide for a different type of arrangement entirely.


Maurice Sauvé: Because of the method of financing under the special fund which was created, which can be replenished when exhausted, we felt that we should use the formula used by the Atlantic Development Board.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, in his explanations, at the beginning of his remarks, the minister said that certain projects cannot or could not be accepted. Can the minister give an example of this?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, a few moments ago I explained to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that they were, among others, projects for certain areas of Newfoundland where no farming is being carried out.
Rural Development


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: As the minister has said, the term "ARDA" has been used for a number of years. In western Canada it is known by that name and has been popularized. It has also been explained that the municipalities and everybody concerned with the act are familiar with that term. There is no need whatever to change the name of the act. I think the minister will have to make an amendment to the bill to bring in the term "ARDA", so that there will be no misunderstanding in the other nine provinces of Canada.


Maurice Sauvé: I already announced that, Mr. Chairman, when I introduced the bill this evening. I said I was going to present an amendment-I have the text here-which will clearly incorporate the expression "ARDA".


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: One other point. I do not like the word rural because it does not fit in with the types of projects carried out under ARDA in western Canada, or for that matter in all parts of Canada. The word is misleading. I think you should take another look at the word rural, to see if you cannot get rid of it, too.


Maurice Sauvé: I do not understand the hon. member, because the act which was passed by parliament was entitled, "An Act to provide for the rehabilitation of agricultural land and development of rural areas in Canada." It was good then, and it must be good now.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the minister. He has just said that the reason for the change in the name given is that Newfoundland has no farming industry. But I would ask him whether the fisheries act which was applied to other provinces would not have been adequate for Newfoundland also. Does Newfoundland have fisheries like other provinces?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, I gave the example of Newfoundland. There were some cases in the province of Quebec, in Saskatchewan and in Alberta, where there was no farming or possibilities for agriculture. At that time, the Department of Justice informed us that we could not, unless we undertook to change the act, accept such projects.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that ARDA enabled a well-located farmer to benefit from ARDA in certain areas.

March 31. 1966
Rural Development


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, such was also our interpretation of the act, at ARDA. The Department of Justice ruled otherwise, and we accepted its decision. That is why we must introduce this bill today.
{English!


Thomas Speakman Barnett: In the light of the earlier remarks I addressed to the minister concerning the relationship between ARDA programs and the proposed fisheries development bill, I should like to ask him if he envisages the possibility of certain projects being developed with provinces in which there might be joint participation by the Department of Fisheries and also by ARDA, and which might involve both fisheries development and certain other aspects of rural development. Does the minister foresee the possibility of this kind of development taking place in provinces such as Newfoundland or, for that matter, in any provinces in which a proper case could be made for such a project?


Maurice Sauvé: It is quite conceivable.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I posed a question to the minister earlier in which I referred to the fact that ARDA was supposed to be prepared to assist industry, or the building of factories in designated areas. I have been unable to find any mention of industry or factories in the act, so I should like to ask the minister if such projects come under ARDA?


Maurice Sauvé: I was sorry that this afternoon when the hon. member asked me the question I could not answer it because the question was declared out of order. The answer is yes, and it is done under the federal-provincial rural development agreements. There is no mention of this in the act. It is under the agreements that we have entered into such projects in certain regions, under certain conditions. It becomes very technical.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Lee Elgy Grills: May I ask a question? Does the assistance under the new projects apply to cheese factories, and enterprises such as that?


Maurice Sauvé: I hesitate to say yes or no. It depends under what part of the agreement this comes and what the conditions are. Perhaps I could study this and give a written answer. I would not want to commit myself on the floor without going into more detail on the particular case.


Lee Elgy Grills: I was thinking of the amalgamation of old cheese factories into one factory. Could that be set up?


Maurice Sauvé: I think this is covered by another program of the Department of Agriculture. I would not want to give a definitive assurance until I have had a chance to study the particular case.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the minister on the same subject.
Does this ARDA program also include the building of slaughter-houses in various locations or various counties?


Maurice Sauvé: It is possible if it is done, for instance, in designated areas or areas termed by us as special rural development areas.

Clause 1 agreed to.
On clause 2.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), seconded by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), will move the following amendment:
LEnglishl
That Bill C-152, An Act to Provide tor the Rehabilitation and Development of Rural Areas in Canada, be amended by striking out Section 2 and substituting therefore:
"2. Section 1 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Rural Development (ARDA) Act."


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. Can we have some understanding as to what we are doing at this time of night. I have no objection to sitting a short time if we are getting somewhere, but if we have half a dozen speeches to come, we should not go on.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Chairman, I am rising on this amendment. I think the government and the opposition in the wording of clause 2 section 1 are too far apart. I myself proposed on behalf of the party I represent an amendment to the clause. I wonder if the minister would consider incorporating in his amendment the idea which we intended to embody in ours. If the minister would like to read it,
I	will furnish him with a copy.


Some hon. Members:: Read it.


Harold Warren Danforth: It is as follows:
That section 2 of Bill C-152 be amended in line
II	thereof by adding the words "Agricultural and" immediately after the word "the".
March 31, 1966


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, before this is carried I would like to ask the minister-

-how to draft the amendment in French, because I think it is very important that we should have both in order to determine whether the amendment meets the requirements?


Maurice Sauvé: In French, line 11 would read as follows: this act may be cited as the Rural Development Act (ARDA), because in the province of Quebec it is known under that name.
The title here is:
The Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Act.
In the province of Quebec it is called: Amenagement Rural et Developpement Agricole, which gives the acronym ARDA.
lEnglish1


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: When the minister is considering all these amendments, would he take into consideration-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It has been proposed to the Chair that we consider a subamendment. I think we should decide on the amendment before deciding on the subamendment.


Mr. Churchill:: No.


Maurice Sauvé: On a point of order, there has been no subamendment. It is just a proposal by the hon. member to see if I would be agreeable to change my amendment, or the amendment of the Minister of Public Works about the title. Would hon. members think it satisfactory if we included ARDA in parenthesis, so that it is clearly included?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Harold Warren Danforth: The purport of the bill is to separate agricultural from rural development, but by making the short title read "Agricultural and Rural Development" that would be satisfactory to both sides of the house.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: To get over all the criticisms that have been made I would like to suggest that we call it the General Economic and Rural Development Act, so that in short it could be referred to as GERDA.


Clément Vincent: You are too late; that was referred to a few minutes ago.
Rural Development


William Arnold Peters: I do not think there is any great difference of opinion about this matter. The minister has said that he anticipates maintaining the title ARDA. I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.), is a proper one and does not change the legal interpretation. It still provides the initials ARDA. We in this party would strongly recommend that the minister accept this proposition.


Maurice Sauvé: Well, if the mover and seconder are agreeable to this proposal, it does not matter at all to me so long as we keep it ARDA, and I hope there will be no problems with the Department of Justice. I will accept "Agricultural and Rural Development Act" if this is agreeable to the mover and seconder.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the Chair understand that the minister is withdrawing his amendment?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, he is inserting "Agricultural and".


Maurice Sauvé: It is to read:
This act may be cited as the Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA).
So that we keep ARDA, and have ARDA in parenthesis, so that we have it twice.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: In order to be perfectly clear on this, you are substituting the word "rural" for "rehabilitation".


An hon. Member:: No.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: That is all; so it is quite all right with me. So long as you are retaining the word "ARDA" and leaving it so that "A" is for agriculture, "R" is for rural, "D" is for development, and "A" is for act-ARDA-that is all right.


Maurice Rinfret: May I ask the
minister whether he is withdrawing the amendment he originally proposed?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes.


George James McIlraith: I move:
That clause 2 of Bill C-152 be amended in line It by adding the words "agricultural and" immediately after the word "the".


Maurice Sauvé: In line 11 the new line would read, under the heading "Short title":
This act may be cited as the Agricultural and Rural Development Act (ARDA).


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1966
Business of the House
On clause 4-Agreements for alternative land use projects authorized.
Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Chairman, about section 4, I should like to ask the minister whether, with regard to research the minister will be authorized under that section to undertake a program himself in any province. It is said:
The minister may cause to be prepared and undertaken directly.-


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Chairman, this applies exclusively to programs of research and investigation and not to development programs.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, but it is precisely with regard to research. Will the minister have the power to authorize research directly in a given province without even asking the consent of the province?


Maurice Sauvé: It was already in the former act, nothing was added or changed, but it is hardly ever applied. Agreements were entered into with each province whereby, in principle, the federal government could cause to be undertaken research programs if it wanted to. But usually it always obtains the consent of the provinces.
Mr Gauihier: It was done by force of habit, I think, under the former act where it was not specified as clearly as it is now.


Maurice Sauvé: If you look at the explanatory notes, on pages two and three, on the right-hand side, you will see that the former version read as follows:
(2) The Minister may cause to be prepared and undertaken, directly or in co-operation with the government of any province or any agency thereof, programs of research and investigation-
The text has not been changed.

Clauses 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, last night in announcing the business of the house for the rest of this week and next I indicated that on Friday we would begin the budget debate, to be continued on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Since that time we have had satisfactory discussions with the house leaders of other parties, with the result that there

will be placed on the order paper tomorrow a notice of motion providing government time on Monday and Tuesday of next week for the debate on capital punishment, with suitable provision for a vote on amendments on Monday and Tuesday evenings, and a final vote on all remaining questions on Tuesday evening. On Wednesday instead of reverting to the budget debate we will consider other items of business on the order paper.
We will also place a motion on the order paper providing for the house to rise on Wednesday night, April 6, and reconvene on Tuesday, April 19.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to acknowledge the co-operation of all party house leaders throughout today in working out something which I hope will be completely satisfactory to all members. If hon. members are interested, I will indicate the form of the notice at this time.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Perhaps the hon. gentleman would put it on the record.


George James McIlraith: The notice is:
That on Monday and Tuesday, April 4 and 5, 1966, the order for resuming debate on private members motion No. 66 and on any amendment thereto shall take precedence of all orders of the day, both government orders and private members business, and
That consideration of the said resolution shall be deemed at all times to be the business of private members and that section (2) of standing order 31 shall apply thereto, and
That on Monday, April 4, if an amendment be under consideration at 8 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment then before the house, and
That on Tuesday, April 5, if any further amendment be under consideration at 5.45 o'clock p.m., Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the amendment then before the house, and
That on Tuesday, April 5, at 9.30 o'clock p.m., unless the said debate be concluded previously, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the main motion.
If there is unanimous consent I will be glad to have the notice made an order of the house at this time. If there is not, it will appear as a notice of motion in the ordinary way.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the proposition which has been outlined by the government house leader is satisfactory to us. We are ready to proceed on the basis of the schedule outlined. May I say at this time that
March 31, 1966

I think all members of this house appreciate very much the fact that the government has set aside five days for this very important debate on this private members' resolution. This government time could be used for government business, but because of the importance of this resolution it will be devoted to this resolution, and I am sure all hon. members appreciate this fact.
Speaking for the members of this party, in order to expedite matters, and so as not to encroach upon the time on Monday which will be allotted to this debate, we are prepared by unanimous agreement to pass the proposal tonight as an order of the house. In this way there will be no encroachment on the time of members who wish to participate in this important debate on Monday and Tuesday.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) in confirming what the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) has said. May I also join in expressing satisfaction that the government by these various arrangements has provided for a total of five days of government time for the question of capital punishment and its abolition. We think the question deserves this much time but realize it could not have been attained unless the government had been willing to co-operate.
I join with the other house leaders in saying that we feel we have worked out an arrangement that should be satisfactory to all concerned, and the text the Minister of Public Works has read is the consensus of all of us who met as house leaders yesterday and today. I believe the hon. member for Ontario has made an appeal that should be listened to. If this arrangement has been agreed to by the representatives of all parties, as it has, surely it is just going through a formality to leave it to Monday to be voted on. Would it not be better for all of us in this house and for the country to know now what is going to happen in this regard. On that basis I hope there will be unanimous consent for this agreement to be put through tonight as an order of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the house, also agree with the suggestion made by the minister tonight that two additional days on the 23033-235
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion capital punishment resolution would be sufficient to allow all hon. members who wish to express their views on the matter to do so.
A moment ago, the minister made an announcement about the Easter recess. I want to thank him for having selected my birthday as the date on which the house reconvenes after Easter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an example of what can be accomplished when representatives of parties meet together in a spirit of good will. I believe it also indicates that in a matter such as this which is not one of political partisanship we can reach agreement in order to facilitate its handling. Therefore we support wholeheartedly the proposal that has been made and would be very happy to give agreement to its passage tonight rather than having a vote on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree unanimously to adopt as an order of the house the proposal put forward by the Minister of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Monday of this week I put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) one of the shortest questions I have ever asked on the orders of the day. It is to be found at page 3257 of Hansard and reads as follows:
In view of the statement in the budget papers tabled on Friday last by the Minister of Finance, to the effect that the cost of living will continue to go up this year, what are pensioners to do?
Perhaps because the question was so short the Prime Minister did not seem to be ready with an answer. At that moment the Chair suggested that it was not a question to be put at that stage of our proceedings and I therefore suggested it was a question that might be raised at ten o'clock.
March 31, 1966
3710	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I repeat my question, Mr. Speaker, and I do so in the light of the budget speech of Tuesday night, in which the Minister of Finance confirmed what had been set out in the budget papers, namely that the cost of living can be expected to rise during 1966.
When one realizes that pensioners are not now able to get by on the $75, for example, that they now have under old age security, what are they to do when the cost of living goes up still further? I hope that any answer that is made on behalf of the government tonight will face up to the seriousness of the question. It is not going to be good enough to say that the budget which was brought down on Tuesday night is somehow going to prevent the cost of living from going higher than it would otherwise have gone. The fact is that that same budget was presented by a minister who said that the cost of living would be going up.
I submit that the difficulty facing our older people in this situation is a very serious one. On every hand we are told that this is an affluent age, that we are living in a period of great prosperity. The Minister of Finance told us this the other night; we hear it from commentators on radio and television; we read it in the press. The number of cars is increasing and the price of everything is going up. We are told that many wages and salaries are going up.
That is all very fine for the few in our society who may be experiencing this, Mr. Speaker, but it is not much comfort to those who are not experiencing it. I suggest that it is downright suffering for those whose incomes are fixed, particularly fixed at a low level and for whom there is no chance to make ends meet, let alone to cope with the rising cost of living.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the only possible answer the government can make to the question which I put the other day is to come through with an increase in the old age security pension.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he does not agree that this applies particularly to the civil service pensioners, the group in whom he and I have had more interest than any other?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, seven minutes is hardly time to answer questions along the way, but that was a rhetorical question and the hon. member knows that my answer, like his, is "Yes".


However, may I point out that in the budget papers which the Minister of Finance tabled we are told that at the end of the current fiscal year there is in the old age security fund a surplus of $215 million. That in itself is sufficient money to increase the old age security pension for 12 months to the extent of about $18 a month for all those on the roll. Therefore I would suggest that this continuing suggestion of the government that it cannot now increase our old age security pension is not good enough and is no answer to the problem our elderly people face in trying to keep alive.
I have in my hand an interesting report entitled "Minimum Financial Needs Investigation". It was published by the Age and Opportunity Bureau at Winnipeg in January of this year. It includes a well worked out budget for older people, and without going into the detail of this well documented budget I may say that the suggestion made at Winnipeg is that the minimum on which an old person can get along is $111.75 per month.
I also have a clipping from the Toronto Globe and Mail for Friday, January 28, 1966, which is a report of the Canadian conference on aging which met in Toronto at that time. Two or three figures are quoted-one of $118 per month, one of $126 per month and another well worked out figure of $138.96 per month-as minimum amounts an elderly person needs just to get along.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
If these are the amounts of money that many social workers feel is required for existence on the part of our older people, and when one realizes that many of them have only the $75 old age security pension or other combinations which still amount to less than this, I submit that the increase in the cost of living which the Minister of Finance has predicted poses a problem which we simply cannot leave to the older people themselves. The old people were the forgotten group in the budget that was presented the other night. They have been forgotten by this government since the time of the last election. 1 think it is time we had a clearcut answer as to what they are to do.
I repeat the question I put to the Prime Minister on Monday, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement in the budget papers that the cost of living will continue to go up this year, what are pensioners to do?
March 31, 1966	COMMONS


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the debate this evening shows the importance of the measures presented by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) in his budget. If this year we allow the pressures of demand to outstrip our productive capacity, prices will rise alarmingly for pensioners and all those with fixed incomes.
Perhaps I could remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of the comments which the Minister of Finance made on this subject in his budget speech.

If we do not, by one means or another, succeed in moderating the increase in aggregate expenditures this year the most immediate penalty we shall suffer is an inflationary increase in prices. Public concern over this danger is already evident. But as a practical matter in our society this danger cannot be avoided by trying to regulate prices and wages. We must deal with the basic issue which is an excess of spending over what is available to meet demands. It is this excess which causes rising prices, costs and profits and which harms those in our society whose economic power and bargaining positions are weak.

Needless to say that every piece of legislation intended to improve the well-being of our senior citizens is a matter of government policy which will be announced through regular channels. It cannot be announced in the Budget speech. The hon. member is well aware that the party in office right now is very well known for its long tradition of being in the forefront in matters of social security.


Thomas Miller Bell: What has the hon. gentleman been talking about?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please; the hon. member for Carleton is not invited to participate in the debate. The rules provide for one speaker to speak seven minutes and a reply from the minister or his representative on the topic before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But that was no reply.



INCOME TAX-ALLOWANCE OF MUNICIPAL TAXATION ON FARM HOMES

Lee Elgy Grills: Mr. Speaker, my question the other day was based on a letter I received from someone in 23033-2351
DEBATES	3711
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion my area. I quote from this letter, which is written by a chartered accountant:
Recently an assessor from the Department of National Revenue Taxation Division had occasion to review the affairs of one of my clients. This client is a farmer, who has farmed the same farm all of his life and is on the same land as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before him and is living in the same house that was built by the latter in 1837. The house is substantially the same as it was then except for the addition of central heating, electricity, and inside plumbing.
As you know, in order to increase revenues, municipalities and other taxing authorities have increased assessment as well as mill rates. Not being able to increase land assessments, the burden of such increase has been placed on the buildings located on the farms.
In the past, it has been the policy of the Department of National Revenue to allow in their entirety, as a deduction from income, the municipal taxes paid by a farmer. However, as a result of the abovementioned review of my client's affairs, the assessor concerned has proposed to add back to income 75 per cent of the portion of taxes applicable to his farm home. . . My client has been assured by the assessor that he is not being singled out for re-assessment and that other farmers are being re-assessed on a similar basis. The assessor also proposes to re-open at least one previous year for re-assessment on the same basis.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
Further, he says that the requirements from the Minister of National Revenue or the Minister of Finance, confirm this change in government policy.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of National Revenue realizes what the farm home means to the farmer. The average farmer we have heard about must have a home to conduct a successful farm operation. He also needs a helpful wife. The successful farm operation needs all the facilities available that are a part of that farm home. Surely any consideration that has been given to the farm home in the past should not be cut off at this time.
I think about the lot in life of the farmer's wife who, compared with her lady friend in town, has to work much harder. She is not allowed any extra consideration with respect to income. No consideration is given to that aspect in any way.
I might say that the farm home serves as an office to conduct farm business. It serves as a workshop, as a place to wash milk pails and milk cans as a place to grade eggs, to dress poultry, and as a place in which many things of that sort are performed. It also serves as a laundry where dirty work clothes that are soiled by farm work are made clean. That sort of thing does not occur in many other forms of endeavour. It also serves as a
March 31, 1966
3712	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion boarding house to board help working on the farm that is far removed from town, or from any restaurant.
These are some of the uses of the farm home. It is important to keep the farm home going to keep the farm successful. After the very flowery report of the Minister of Finance the other night, I cannot understand why there should be this change in policy. Surely the government is not going to look to this source to balance the budget. This matter is of considerable concern to farm people throughout the country, and I should be interested in hearing an explanation.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, we all realize the limitations imposed by this period of three minutes in which to reply. The question the hon. member asked was: "Is it the intention of the government and the minister's department to not allow municipal taxes on the farmers' home as a farm expense against farmers' income tax?"

I always hesitate to say that this is the answer, but an answer is this: I am advised that section 12(1) (a) of the Income Tax Act does not permit the deduction of an expense except to the extent that it has been incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income from property or a business of the taxpayer.
If the home of the farmer is located on his farm and can be shown to have been used to earn farm income, a deduction will be allowed for municipal taxes in the amount up to one quarter of the taxes, depending on the business use made of the home building. It is not usual to allow any part of the municipal taxes on the home, if the home is located off the farm.
This was the answer from the department, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether the accountant referred to has taken the particular case up with the tax department, but this is the general answer to a general question raised by the hon. member.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.52 p.m.
March 31, 1968



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, Ontario, March 31, 1966.
Dear Mr.-
The government has been giving a good deal of attention to the need for the best possible performance from the Canadian economy and to the contribution in this regard of the many Canadian companies which are subsidiaries of foreign parents or are largely foreign owned. Such companies have responsibilites both to their parent companies and to the country in which they operate.
I have concluded that a statement of what is expected of subsidiary companies as regards their responsibilities to the Canadian community would be of benefit to all concerned.
To fulfil its responsibilities as a good citizen, a company seeks to perfect its performance through the vigorous pursuit of available market opportunities and the efficient use of its resources and, in so doing, contributes to the sound development of the community in which it operates.
In the pursuit of this end, subsidiaries of foreign companies enjoy the backing of their parent companies through the provision of financial, managerial, technological and research assistance, along with other forms of support which might not otherwise be available. At the same time, the fact of foreign control leaves the subsidiaries open to external influences which may not always be consistent with their own best interests and those of the Canadian community at large. Such a company may lack the decision-making authority to pursue policies in line with the opportunities afforded within the growing national community and otherwise to develop the full potential of the Canadian operation.
Subsidiaries of foreign companies occupy a prominent position in the Canadian economy. They have contributed greatly to Canada's development in the past and their role in the future is no less challenging. In a more interdependent world, companies with foreign affiliates have an increasingly important role in the international exchange of goods, services, technology and ideas.
The Canadian government is desirous that subsidiaries be free to develop their full potential within the Canadian community. In this regard it is most important that subsidiaries should not have restrictive limitations placed upon their sound development by their parent organizations.
This objective can be made more difficult if foreign governments introduce measures which affect the financial or commercial policy of parent companies or seek to influence them in their relations with their foreign subsidiaries.
In the case of the United States balance of payments program, the authorities in that country have made quite clear, as indicated in the communique of the recent meeting of the joint United States-Canadian committee on trade and economic affairs, that the ''United States government was not requesting United States corporations to induce their Canadian subsidiaries to act in any ways that differed from their normal business practices as regards the repatriation of earnings, purchasing and sales policies, or their other financial and commercial activities". The United States authorities have, in fact, reemphasized the view that "United States subsidiaries abroad should behave as good citizens of the country where they are located".
I am confident that this also would be the view of the governments of other countries whose companies have subsidiaries in Canada.
I believe it timely and useful therefore to set forth, particularly for the benefit of subsidiary companies, some basic principles of good corporate citizenship in Canada. I trust that these principles will be regarded as helpful by your company.
Some guiding principles of good corporate
behaviour for subsidiaries in Canada of Foreign Companies
Desirable objectives include the following:-
(1)	Pursuit of sound growth and full realization of the company's productive potential thereby sharing the national objective of full and effective use of the nation's resources.
[Stage Direction]
March 31, 1966
(2)	Realization of Maximum competitiveness through the most effective use of the company's own resources, recognizing the desirability of progressively achieving appropriate specialization of productive operations within the internationally affiliated group of companies.
(3)	Maximum development of market opportunities in other countries as well as in Canada.
(4)	Where applicable, to extend processing of natural resource products to the extent practicable on an economic basis.
(5)	Pursuit of a pricing policy designed to assure a fair and reasonable return to the company and to Canada for all goods and services sold abroad, including sales to the parent company and other foreign affiliates.
(6)	In matters of procurement, to search out and develop economic sources of supply in Canada.
(7)	To develop as an integral part of the Canadian operation wherever practicable, the technological research and design capability necessary to enable the company to pursue appropriate product development programs so as to take full advantage of market opportunities domestically and abroad.
(8)	Retention of a sufficient share of earnings to give appropriate financial support to the growth requirements of the Canadian operation, having in mind a fair return to shareholders on capital invested.
(9)	To work toward a Canadian outlook within management, through purposeful training programs, promotion of qualified Canadian personnel and inclusion of a major proportion of Canadian citizens on its board of directors.
(10)	To have the objective of a financial structure which provides opportunity for equity participation in the Canadian enterprise by the Canadian public.
(11)	Periodically to publish information on the financial position and operations of the company.
(12)	To give appropriate attention and support to recognized national objectives and established government programs designed to further Canada's economic development and to encourage and support Canadian institutions directed toward the intellectual, social and cultural advancement of the community.
In setting forth the foregoing principles of good corporate behaviour, I recognize that there is already widespread adherence to such principles among subsidiary companies in Canada both in spirit and in deed. However, to the extent that these principles are not already applied, subsidiary companies are urged to work purposefully and constructively toward their application, as circumstances permit.
I would like also to tell you of my intention to seek the co-operation of large and medium sized subsidiary companies in providing periodically information, on a confidential basis, relating to certain aspects of their operations and financing. In this way the government will gain a clearer insight into the contribution of Canadian subsidiaries to the Canadian economy.
Questionnaire forms providing a full explanation of the information being sought will be circulated within the next few weeks. I hope that prompt and careful attention will be given this request for information.
Thank you for your co-operation.
Yours sincerely, Robert H. Winters.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 1, 1966