1967-01-25

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege pursuant to citation 105(3) of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, as well as citation 108(3), citation 110, citation 111(1) and citation 113.
As a member from Montreal island, I maintain that I have been subjected to an unfair and slanderous attack by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire). That attack on my integrity and competence, which constitutes a breach of my privileges as member for Mercier, follows from an item published in the newspaper La Presse of Tuesday, January 24, 1967, under the signature of Mr. Gilles D'Aoust, in which he quotes the hon. member for Lapointe as having stated in Quebec city recently: "that save for a few exceptions, the representatives from the Montreal area in the House of Commons make the worst membership of incompetents there is". The article also reports other unfounded and malicious accusations along the same lines.
Pursuant to the standing orders, I ask the Clerk to read the excerpts which I find libellous toward some of my colleagues, and I now table this newspaper clipping.
I deny the member for Lapointe any competence and judgment to decide whether or not any hon. member is competent. I may add that this is not the first time he takes the liberty to make such malicious accusations outside the house against his colleagues, which accusations tend to destroy the prestige of this parliament in the minds of Canadians, to the point where many wonder whether these are not, on the part of the leader of this separatist party, tactics intended to destroy governmental institutions in our country.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Therefore, I move that the member for Lapointe be summoned by the house to appear before the committee on privileges and
elections as soon as possible to answer for his repeated, unjustified and libellous attacks against myself and several members of the house.
The article appeared only yesterday in the newspaper La Presse and I referred my question of privilege to you at the first opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Mercier sent me notice of his question of privilege, as required by standing orders, together with the newspaper clipping. According to citation 113 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne, I now ask the Clerk of the house to read the excerpts considered reprehensible by the member for Mercier.
The Clerk:
Federal members from the Montreal area are called incompetents by Mr. Gregoire. However, he makes exceptions for Messrs. Charles Drury, John Turner and Pierre-Elliot Trudeau.
The federal member of parliament for Lapointe, Mr. Gilles Gregoire stated yesterday that, save for a few exceptions, the representatives from the Montreal area in the House of Commons constitute the "worst membership of incompetents" there is.
The M. P. strongly blames the Montreal members for having failed to defend the interests of their region in this matter.
Mr. Gregoire blames the members from Montreal, and the Quebec members generally, for placing the interests of their party ahead of the interests of their region. Apart from a few men like Messrs. Drury and Turner, the members from Montreal, according to him, are not serious.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Si. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few words on this question of privilege. I shall be brief, but I should like to note certain points of this same statement. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) seems to be trying to assume the role of defender of the port of Montreal. I should like to inform him that while he was busy with his personal affairs, we, in the House of Commons, were defending the interests of the port of Montreal. We did not need the ideas of the separatist member to encourage us to work in the interest of our electors. Having been elected in 1957, I was among the first, in 1958, to work on behalf of the port of Montreal. I hope that the hon. member for Lapointe, who considers himself as the hub of the universe, will finally realize the facts.
12220	COMMONS
Reported Statement by Member for Lapointe


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: I listened very carefully to the observations made on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). I submit this is not a question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) told a public gathering his impressions of his work here, in the House of Commons and in parliamentary committees.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Maurice Allard: This goes to show how incompetent some hon. members are, Mr. Speaker; they do not know parliamentary procedure and do not remain quiet when an hon. member has the floor.
The hon. member for Lapointe voiced an opinion, in his capacity as member of a democracy. He has a right to his opinions, and I would even go so far as to say here that I agree with him when he says that the hon. member for Saint-Antoine-Westmount and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Messrs. Drury and Turner) are exceptions in this respect. I believe they are competent, hard-working men.
As to the hon. member for Mount-Royal (Mr. Trudeau), I have often voiced my disapproval of the opinions he voices outside the house. I submit he does not speak for the province of Quebec, and is in no position to voice the aspirations of Quebec and French Canada in this house.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. Liberal members from Quebec would keep quiet. There is no question of privilege but merely a question of opinion which the hon. member for Lapointe has expressed and which millions of Quebec citizens share.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, while admitting that the statements made by the member for Lapointe are false, I wish to thank him for having implicitly recognized the extreme competence of the members of the Quebec area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry):: Mr. Speaker, although I feel the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe are not directed against me, I should like to say a few words about the question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the feelings of the members from the island of Montreal, and I agree with the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) when he says that those statements are gratuitous and erroneous.
DEBATES	January 25. 1967
Still, for the guidance of the hon. members, allow me to make the following suggestion: the best way to deal with people like the member for Lapointe is simply to ignore them, because the member for Lapointe does not serve the interests of the province of Quebec in this house but only his own personal interests. I, therefore, suggest that the members ignore him and continue their work toward the development of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a small word on the question of privilege. My colleagues say I should speak "en franqais", but if I do nobody will understand me.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: It seems passing strange that there should be all this fuss and furore about the comments of an individual who deliberately has placed himself in the most insignificant location in the house-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: -who by his own declaration, should not even be recognized as a member of it and who, by his own design, never intends to return.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to ask that other statements be added to those which should be studied by the committee on privileges and elections, namely that of the member for Hochelaga (Mr. Pelletier) in which he called the Liberal members from Montreal "garbage dregs".
I would also ask that the statement made by the president of the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, Mr. Andre Laurendeau, who called the 75 Liberal members of the last election "75 nouilles", be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. This could also be placed on record. There would be quite a few people to appear before the committee.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I merely wish to add that I said that the members of parliament from Montreal, with the exception of a few, seemed to be incompetent. As seen today, those who felt they were alluded to rose-
[Mr. Loiselle.l
January 25, 1967


Mr, Speaker:: Order. I do not think it beneficial to proceed further with this question. As hon. members know, under standing orders, remarks that can be complained of must be of a libellous character in order to constitute a question of privilege. The remarks complained of by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger), rightfully perhaps, on behalf of his colleagues, may be reprehensible, but I do not think I can consider them as libellous so as to constitute a prima facie question of privilege.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house about a proposed program of parliamentary business. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that any program for our centennial year should, if possible, be planned and dealt with so as to permit a summer recess which will enable members to participate in centennial celebrations in their home areas.
Whether there is to be such a recess, however, will depend on the progress we can make in dealing with those legislative proposals on which action is required. This, in its turn, will require planning by the government as well as consultation with and cooperation from opposition parties. In any such co-operation the necessity for adequate parliamentary discussion of every proposal is naturally accepted.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
With these considerations in mind I am putting forward for consideration a program of parliamentary action in the first half of 1967 along the following lines. The present session would prorogue on March 10, which would give us 33 more sitting days. The new session would begin on Monday, March 13, with an Easter adjournment from Thursday, March 23 to Monday April 3. The centennial summer adjournment would extend to the end of September, when the autumn session would begin.
The government hopes that before the summer parliament will be able to deal with certain measures which I will indicate. The list I put forward now does not include relatively non-controversial bills which can often, by agreement, be dealt with in broken parliamentary time, as was the case last evening. Nor does it make provision for emergency
Business of the House
developments which may take up the time of the commons either for legislation not now anticipated or for other purposes. Subject to these qualifications the following program is submitted as of now for action before the summer adjournment, and I should add that the items will not necessarily be dealt with in the order in which I place them now:
The Canadian forces reorganization bill; The interim budget; Resolution setting up a special committee to study parliamentary rules, procedures and practices, as well as the extension for another session of changes agreed to in the existing rules; Resolution setting up a special committee on the national anthem; The public service bills, when returned from the committee; The Bank Act amendment, when returned from the committee; together with the Quebec Savings Bank bill and the deposit insurance bill; Industrial research and development incentives bill; Immigration appeal board bill; Fiscal arrangements bill, including post-secondary education proposals; Statutory salaries and judges' salaries; Canadian Wheat Board extension bill; Broadcasting legislation; Criminal Code amending bill; Bill to implement certain of the new Nova Scotia coal and industrial development policies; National Housing Act amendments; Canada Development Corporation bill; Film Development Corporation bill; Adult occupational training bill; Bill to amend Canada Corporations Act; Citizenship Act amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Which centennial is the Prime Minister speaking of?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In addition, after prorogation there would be the debate on the speech from the throne; the budget debate, and consideration of the estimates of the departments.
This gives an indication of the work which should be done if we are to consider a centennial summer adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: The Prime Minister's plan for a summer recess which would enable members to take part in the centenary celebrations in their own areas is a good one. However, in outlining the work proposed for the remainder of this session and the following session the right hon. gentleman proceeded to destroy this plan, in fact to make it impossible, by saying that whether such a recess materialized would depend on

January 25, 1967
Business of the House
the progress made with the legislation required later this year and, I presume, during this present session.
The Prime Minister has set out certain dates as goals. The first is March 10 as the prorogation date for the present session. Then he weiit on to mention that a new session would start on March 13, three days later, and during that session there would be an Easter adjournment from March 23 to April 3. But in setting out the goals for prorogation and recess he failed to give a date when the summer adjournment would begin, although he did mention that parliament would be recalled toward the end of September.
In his statement he has not made it clear whether the program he has listed would have to be dealt with during this session or carried over into the next session. He has listed 23 pieces of legislation, and has said there may be others to be considered that the government is not aware of at the moment.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the 23 pieces of legislation which the Prime Minister has listed would be sufficient to make up a throne speech at the beginning of a new session which normally would last six to seven months. Included in the list are major pieces of legislation. In addition to the legislation that he has listed he has mentioned a debate on the speech from the throne, another budget debate and consideration of the departmental estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68.
In setting out the dates for the plan he put forward I am sure the Prime Minister must have had his tongue in his cheek, because it is impossible for all this work to be carried out in the next 3 days or the next 66 days. There are such major pieces of legislation as the unification of the armed forces, the national anthem, the public service bills, the Bank Act amendments, the immigration bill, aid to the Nova Scotia coal industry and industrial development policies, broadcasting legislation, Housing Act amendments, the Canada Development Corporation bill-


John George Diefenbaker: Is that back again?


Michael Starr: Yes; and there is the film development corporation bill, the Citizenship Act amendments, and consideration of the estimates for the fiscal year 1967-68 which by themselves will take at least 30 days if the new rules are still to be applied. Surely the Prime Minister does not suppose that all these major pieces of legislation will be put through the house allowing for proper discussion before they are finally passed? So far as dates

are concerned, the goals the Prime Minister has set are in my opinion nothing but a camouflage in view of the massive program of legislation that has yet to be considered. I think the government should review this program and set out the legislation in an orderly, scheduled fashion.
So far as the official opposition are concerned we are prepared to co-operate, just as we have done during this whole session of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Michael Starr: There are groans and oh's, Mr. Speaker, but only last night it was upon the suggestion of the official opposition that four pieces of legislation were cleared away from the order paper. Our task has been not only to co-operate but to try to lead the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I say we are co-operating, that we have done so in the past and will in the future, but at the same time we feel it is our duty and responsibility that legislation proposed by the government should receive careful scrutiny and full consideration, and this duty we intend to fulfil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's outline of a proposed timetable for parliament during this calendar year will be extremely useful. I think it underlines the suggestion we have been making from time to time that each year we ought to endeavour to work out a parliamentary timetable so we can conduct our business in an orderly manner in the time available, without coming to the end of a session and having to discard legislation due to lack of time when, during the session, we spent a great deal of time on less essential legislation.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
Therefore I think some type of timetable is very useful. The Prime Minister's suggestion of closing the present session on March 10 and beginning the new session on March 13, with an Easter recess from March 23 until April 3, seems to make good sense. The Prime Minister suggests a summer recess, and that we then return at the end of September. He has not said when the summer recess would begin. I can understand this, because the Prime Minister is not, of course, in a position to know how much progress we will have made at that time. It certainly is difficult,
January 25, 1967

however, to know whether it will be necessary to have a recess until the end of September unless we know when we are likely to adjourn.
Members of this party are anxious to cooperate with the government in its plans to have a proper and adequate celebration of Canada's centennial year. We wish to help in every way we can with these celebrations in our constituencies and throughout the country. However, Mr. Speaker, we are convinced that the first business of parliament is to do the work of the country. We believe there is no better way in which we can celebrate Canada's 100th birthday than to devote ourselves to the problems which confront the Canadian people.
A short summer recess certainly would be advisable, but in our opinion there is no reason for a long summer recess. If we should be able to adjourn by the latter part of June, there is no reason that parliament could not reassemble after Labour day. Two or two and a half months would seem to be an adequate time to enable members to attend to the work in their constituencies and take part in these centennial celebrations.
While I agree that the items the Prime Minister has outlined are very essential, I should like to point out to the house that there are many items which were not listed. There is nothing mentioned about the setting up of a department of consumer affairs which is likely to be recommended by the committee on consumer credit or to deal with the whole question of the rising cost of living. There is nothing mentioned about legislation on divorce or on birth control, both of which have been studied by a committee of the house. There is nothing mentioned about hate literature, which also has been recommended, or about anti-pollution legislation, or car safety.
There is nothing mentioned dealing with the matter of Canada's constitution or dealing with-as I hope will be the case in 1967-the report of the bicultural and bilingual commission. Certainly there can be no more appropriate year than 1967 to begin to grapple with this problem.
I should like to recommend to the Prime Minister at this time that we move with speed in respect of the setting up of the committee to look into the rules and procedures of the house, particularly if we are to get any agreement concerning which of the present rules will be extended into the next session, so that we do not come to the end of this session with the subject unresolved. This would give us
Business of the House
the necessary time to explore the whole question of further revision of the rules so we could carry on our business much more expeditiously. Certainly I would hope that out of such a committee would come plans for the setting up of a parliamentary timetable, the first step toward which has been taken by the Prime Minister's announcement today.
I should like to say to the Prime Minister that while we are just as anxious as anyone to get back to our constituencies for a short summer recess, we shall insist throughout this session that the primary responsibility of parliament is to deal with the items the Prime Minister has mentioned and some other items which have not been mentioned. This must have top priority. There is no better way we can serve Canada in its centenary than to devote ourselves to the task of finding some solutions to the many problems which confront the Canadian people at this time.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, in glancing over the timetable which the Prime Minister has given to us for the next few months, it seems to me that if we live on hope we certainly have a lot to live on. As the hon. member for Ontario has stated, there is enough mentioned here to justify a throne speech debate and a full session. I quite agree that it is a step forward on the part of the government and I thank the Prime Minister for having taken this initiative in giving us some chronology in respect of the business of the house. This at least gives us an objective, but the dates which have been mentioned are not realistic and are not fair to the proper handling of the legislation which it is desired should be passed through the house.
My experience in this house has not been very lengthy, but I know that all the items which have been mentioned cannot be pushed through and digested in the short period which is being allowed. Some other measures have been mentioned here by other members who have spoken, and there are the estimates themselves. The study of the estimates can take a considerable time even if we just give two days to each department. I foresee a very long debate on the armed forces bill. I am not attempting to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, but it is going to take quite some time to deal with this matter. Anyone who believes otherwise has been asleep for the past six months. I believe it would be nice if we could get out of here on April 3, but I do not intend to be lured into the position of saying "Well, we are going to get out on the third and be damned with the rest". That is not the point.

January 25, 1967
Business of the House
The point is that the government has business to do and we have business to do. I think we must take the necessary time to do a good job regardless of centennial year.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned some other matters which are not set out here and which should be included. One matter which should be considered is the bankruptcy situation. If the Prime Minister thinks this is not too important, he should speak to the Minister of Justice, who stated before the Senate committee that this is one of the most important problems facing this country today because of the tax losses to the government and the losses to everybody else. There are a multitude of problems which might come up and which are not listed in the 20 different pieces of legislation mentioned.
I wish to be realistic in respect of this matter; therefore I say to the Prime Minister "Good luck". In the meantime, however, we will do our job. If it is possible for us to get away for the centennial celebrations, then well and good; but as responsible members of parliament I believe our first duty is to ensure that the administration of this country is not left on the loose after 100 years of work and dropped in a shambles, even if it is only for one year. We know what is involved in attempting to catch up again.
With the amount of work which is before us I cannot see the possibility of a long summer recess. If it is necessary to continue on into July in order to complete our work, then we should do so. On the other hand, if it is possible to complete our work in June then we will be able to get away in June.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
When we adjourn will depend on how the legislation is brought in, the number of legislative items and the importance of that legislation. The more items brought in and the more important they are, the more discussion we are likely to have.
I hope the Prime Minister's wish comes true, but I would not bet too much that it will. The chances are pretty slim, and I am sure that if he should win such a bet at all it would be only by the skin of his teeth. I hope my fears turn out to be unfounded in this regard. In the meantime I assure the Prime Minister that we will give him all the cooperation he needs without, however, neglecting our responsibilities. fMr. Langlois (Megan tic).]


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the Prime Minister's remarks and the comments of those who have spoken since, I cannot help but think it is a good thing that we in 1967 do not have the responsibilities the Fathers of Confederation had 100 years ago in 1867, because I am sure we would never have got together.
I am in agreement with the Prime Minister that it is essential we have a recess of parliament during the summer months. I do not know what commitments the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has after May 15, but I am aware of my own engagements between that date and the middle of September. Members of the cabinet and other members of parliament I am sure have commitments which will make it practically impossible for them to attend to the normal duties of parliament if it is in session during those months.
In this connection we as members of parliament have a definite responsibility to the people of Canada to share with them the celebrations of our centennial. It is the responsibility of members of this house to assist in a very specific way in making our centennial celebrations what they should and must be if our centennial is to carry the full impact it should and must to the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: It is my hope that some arrangement can be worked out among the various house leaders and parties so we can complete the essential work of parliament by the middle of May. This will allow us to fulfil our responsibilities to our constituents and to the nation, at least until the middle of September.
I cannot understand why the Prime Minister continues to hold this situation as a club over members of the House of Commons as he has again today, when he said in the second paragraph of his statement that any recess will depend upon the co-operation he receives in dealing with the legislative proposals the government has in mind.
Certainly a great deal of responsibility in this regard rests on the government in its management of our affairs and the initiative it takes in getting certain legislative proposals under way. For instance, the special committee to study parliamentary rules and procedures will be faced with a major task. That committee should have been set up and become active long before now, because we realize that at the end of the current session
January 25, 1967

the special arrangements under which we now operate will no longer be valid.
As I look over the list of legislative measures enunciated by the Prime Minister I find that in addition to the budget debate there is the defence bill, the setting up of a special committee on rules and procedures, the public service bills, Bank Act amendments, broadcasting legislation, a bill to amend the Canada Corporation Act and Citizenship Act amendments. These are all major legislative items, and to expect that these can be completed in 33 days is absolutely ridiculous. That is impossible.
There must be a meeting of minds in this house in planning our business in order to deal with these items. I can envisage the defence bill going to a committee, and consideration of the bill in respect of Bank Act amendments has not yet been completed by the committee. I am sure each of those two legislative items will take longer than the 33 days left when they are considered by the house, not to mention the time that will be required to deal with the other items to which he referred. In addition there are many other so-called minor legislative items not included among the 20 listed by the Prime Minister.
The items which have been enunciated today might well be compared to the entire contents of a speech from the throne, and may be expected to take up the time of a normal session. I base that statement on the time required in respect of our past accomplishments.
It is my belief that a statement of the kind we heard today only places obstacles in the way of our reaching what I think is the objective of most hon. members of this house, that is to have a lengthy recess during the summer months which will permit participation in centennial activities.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Robert Norman Thompson: Some members say no, but let me remind them that our responsibilities go beyond this house. If ever we had a responsibility to the country, at this time we have a responsibility to participate in centennial activities. A great number of people in this country have had their confidence in this democratic institution shaken in the past few years by our performance in this House of Commons. Their confidence has been shaken in respect of our democratic processes on which our own way of life in Canada is based. I urge the Prime Minister to get
23033-774J
Questions
together again with the house leaders in order that we may achieve the goals he has outlined.
I cannot see how the program outlined by the Prime Minister can be carried out in the indicated time. The only way we can get together is by serious consultation and cooperation in working out a more realistic approach, with a general acceptance of the objectives outlined by the Prime Minister.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What is the departmental allocation for housing construction for 1967 for the following Indian reservations (a) Fort Alexander (b) Hollow Water (c) Berens River (d) Fisher River (e) Sachigo Lake?
2.	What is the planned expenditure for 1968 and 1969?
3.	How many units are to be constructed in each of these three years?
4.	In each of the above cases, will the construction be part of a continuation of existing programming, or will it be as part of a new program for community development on Indian reserves?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Allocation of departmental (public) funds for the fiscal year 1966-67 is:	(a)	$73,000;	(b)
$13,000; (c) $20,000; (d) $36,000; (e) $36,000. These are planned expenditures only and are subject to change.
2.	The planned expenditures for the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69 for housing construction, by individual reserves, are not yet available. Proposed expenditures, when recommended, will be subject to approval by parliament.
3.	The number of units planned for the fiscal year 1966-67 is as follows: Fort Alexander, 24; Hollow Water, 4; Berens River, 5; Fisher River, 8; Sachigo Lake, 6.
A breakdown of housing units to be constructed, by individual reserves, in 1967-68 and 1968-69 is not available at this time.
4.	A community plan has been approved for Fort Alexander Indian reserve and the housing construction program is being carried out in conformity with that plan. A planned community is being proposed at Berens River. On the Hollow Water and Fisher reserves the band councils have not asked for community

January 25, 1967
Questions
planning and the house construction programs are being carried out in accordance with established practices. At Sachigo Lake the construction of Indian housing is a continuation of existing programming. These housing projects in all cases are part of the $112,000,000 program for physical development of Indian communities.


BUDGET FOR C.B.C. &quot;SUNDAY&quot; PROGRAM
Mr. Flemming: 1.	Is the budgeted cost of the program "Sunday" being presented by the C.B.C. on Sunday evening, $30,000 per week?
2.	If this figure is not accurate, what is the weekly
cost of same?
3.	Does the government agree that the spending of any such amount can be justified in view of the protests regarding the program on Sunday evening, November 27, 1966?
4.	Is the government prepared to introduce appropriate legislation to deal with the authority of the C.B.C. to produce such programs?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: 1.	I am informed by C.B.C. that the program budget of "Sunday", including direct and indirect costs, is approximately $30,000 per week.
2.	N/A.
3.	The new "Sunday" series is continuing to develop and efforts have been made to eliminate the shortcomings that have occurred in the early programs of the series.
4.	No.


FURTHER REPORT ON ECONOMIC UNITY OF CANADA
Mr. Ball (Carleton): 1.	Has the government received any further report from the interdepartmental committee on the study of the economic unity of Canada, subsequent to the interim report dated April 30, 1965, which was tabled in the house on May 7, 1965?
2.	If so, when will such report be tabled?
3.	If not, when is such report now anticipated?


Mr. John R. Maiheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to starred question No. 2,320 is as follows: Part 1. No.
Part 2. Not applicable in view of the answer to part 1.
Part 3. No further report is now contemplated. The conclusion reached following a preliminary survey by the committee was that the question whether this study should be proceeded with could be given more effective consideration in the context of various studies
(Mr. Laing.l
and inquiries undertaken by other governmental committees and agencies, such as the tax structure committee, the Economic Council of Canada, the royal commission on taxation and the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. In the circumstances, it was decided to suspend the work of the interdepartmental committee with the possibility of resuming it at a later date if it seemed desirable in the light of the studies and reports referred to above.


PUBLICATIONS OF ENERGY AND MINES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Laprise: For each year since 1962, how many publications in (a) French (b) English, have been printed and distributed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and by its subsidiary services?
Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Energy, Mines and (a) French		Resources): (b) English
1962	155	6651963	151	7271964	184	8051965	99	7691966	113	645The above	figures include a	variety of
reports, papers, memoirs, bulletins, etc. all related to the activities of the department and its subsidiary services. Many papers are printed in scientific and technical journals. The majority of English publications carry a French abstract.


C.B.C. PROGRAM &quot;LE SEL DE LA SEMAINE&quot;
Mr. Blouin: Was the program "Le Sel de la Semaine", broadcast by the C.B.C. on December 20, 1966, between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. and, if so (a) what was the cost of the part of the program during which the leader of the Ralliement d'Independance Nationale de Quebec (Quebec Movement for National Independence) was interviewed, i.e., from 10:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. (b) what was the fee for persons taking part in this broadcast (c) what was the total cost of this half-hour broadcast?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: Yes.
(a)	Approximately $2,000.
(b)	No fees were paid to those interviewed in this part of the program.
(c)	Total cost of the one-hour program was approximately $7,000.
January 25, 1967


OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRADE WITH EASTERN EUROPE
Mr. Hees: 1.	What are the countries in eastern Europe where opportunities exist for greater sales of Canadian products?
2.	What additional trade initiatives are going to be used to take advantage of them?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1. Eastern European countries in which, on the basis of my personal observations, opportunities exist for increased sales of Canadian products include the U.S.S.R., Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
2.	On two separate trips last summer, officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and I visited the Soviet union as well as Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia. Grain sales are, of course, attracting the most attention, but Canada is, at the same time, gradually expanding and diversifying exports of industrial materials and capital equipment to eastern Europe. Canada's sales of commodities other than grain and flour to these markets have increased substantially over the past two years to a total last year of about $35 million.
In order to provide the framework for further expansion of trade opportunities with eastern Europe, the government has taken the initiative in extending Canada's trade agreements with most of the socialist countries. In Moscow last June a protocol was signed extending the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement for another three years. At the same time, the Canadian Wheat Board entered into a new long term wheat agreement with its Soviet counterpart. In July a long term wheat agreement was renewed with Poland. At present, the government is negotiating with Bulgaria and preparing for negotiations with Hungary with a view to renewing our trade arrangements with these countries. Trade negotiations with Roumania are also presently under study.
The trade fair program sponsored by the Department of Trade and Commerce is an important aid to businessmen in their efforts to develop trade opportunities in the socialist countries. In addition to participating in the leading east European exhibitions, Canada last year for the first time took part in a Soviet trade fair as well. For this year, Canada is planning exhibits at four fairs in the socialist countries including Poznan, Brno and Zagreb.
Questions
The government is also taking the initiative in sponsoring trade missions in both directions. This year the Department of Trade and Commerce plans to send a metals and minerals mission and a capital equipment and consulting engineering mission to east Europe. An incoming cattle buying mission from the U.S.S.R. is expected and an incoming nuclear power mission will include representatives from eastern Europe. Missions involving other commodities are also being explored, and our trade commissioners in these countries are being brought back to Canada this spring.
Canadian businessmen are being encouraged to explore personally export potentials being created in the socialist countries as a result of the changes taking place there.
In the open economy, the actual buying and selling is done by businessmen. Accordingly, it is worth noting that, in addition to government activity, chambers of commerce and boards of trade across the country are sponsoring missions to eastern Europe and the number of individual businessmen travelling in both directions is increasing steadily.


PURCHASES OF SCALLOPS BY ARMED FORCES
Mr. Crouse: How many pounds of scallops were purchased by all branches of the armed forces during 1965 and
1966?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1965, 111,310 lbs.; 1966, 110,902 lbs.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Alberi):
Has the government instituted a winter works program this season in the national parks and, if so, what is the estimated expenditure and employment in each park?


Arthur Laing: While the government has not instituted a winter works program, this year, which has applications in the national parks, the department has attempted to relieve unemployment by carrying out projects during the winter season wherever possible.


TENDERS FOR MAIL DELIVERY, ANTICOSTI ISLAND
Mr. Keays: 1. In 1966 did the Department of Transport, marine radio section, request tenders for the transport of mail and delivery to lighthouses on Anticosti island?

January 25, 1967
Questions
2.	If so (a) who were the tenderers (b) on what basis were they invited to call?
3.	Was the contract awarded to the lowest bidder?
4.	In what amount was the contract?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The district marine agent of the Department of Transport at Quebec, P.Q., called for tenders for the transport of mail and delivery to lighthouses on Anticosti island on October 17, 1966.
2.	(a) Air Gaspe Inc., Northern Wings Ltd., Wheeler Northland Airways Ltd. (b) Transportation of mail from Port Menier, P.Q., to the light stations once per month, for five trips, from December, 1966. Prices were to be in accordance with carriers tariff filed with the Air Transport Board.
3.	Yes.
4.	$1,228.50.


PAYMENTS TO LIGHTHOUSE KEEPERS, BELLEISLE RIVER, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: How much money does the Department of Transport pay to each lighthouse keeper or lighthouse attendant on Belleisle river, New Brunswick?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Light caretaker, Hatfield Point, Belleisle river, $60 per annum; light caretaker, Greys Point, Belleisle river, $60 per annum; light caretaker, Long Point, Belleisle river, $60 per annum.


'RELIEF FOR AREAS AFFECTED BY AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT
Mr. Irvine: Further to question No. 2,272 answered January 9, 1967 (a) what action is contemplated to provide relief in those specific areas mentioned in the Automotive Parts Manufacturing Association brief as a result of economic pressures generated by the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement (b) what relief is contemplated by removal of the then 11 per cent (now 12 per cent) tax on machinery and equipment for the automotive parts manufacturing industry?


Mr. Jean Chretien (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: (a) This is a matter of government policy. If any changes are to be proposed to the relevant legislation they will be announced at the appropriate time, (b) Production equipment used by manufacturers that is described in paragraph 1 of Part XIII of Schedule III of the Excise Tax Act is exempt from sales tax.
The increase in the rate of sales tax from 11 per cent to 12 per cent proposed in the supplementary budget on December 19, 1966 is

not to apply to machinery and equipment described in Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act. The machinery and equipment described in Schedule V of the Excise Tax Act is to become taxable at only 6 per cent on April 1, 1967 and it is to become exempt from sales tax on April 1, 1968.


REMUNERATION OF REGISTERED NURSES IN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Cowan: What is the remuneration given to registered nurses who are members of the Armed Services of Canada?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. On enrolment in the Canadian forces, a registered nurse is granted a short service commission as an officer for a period of two to six years as she may select. She is enrolled in the rank of 2nd lieutenant (army) or equivalent and promoted the following day to the rank of lieutenant (army) or equivalent.
2.	As a member of the Canadian forces, she is eligible to receive pay for the rank in which enrolled and promoted. The monthly rates of pay are as follows:
Rank Monthly rates (in dollars)
(Army rank Basic	After	After
or equivalent) rate two years four years
in rank in rank
2nd lieutenant 355
Lieutenant	540	580	595
3.	When a member of the Canadian forces is provided with single quarters, rations or single quarters and rations, deductions are made from the member's pay based on the following monthly rates: (a) charges for single quarters; (i) for an officer of the rank of 2nd lieutenant (army) or equivalent, $30; (ii) for a lieutenant (army) or equivalent, $40; (b) charges for rations, at the rate in effect for an officer, $55.
4.	A registered nurse when enrolled in the Canadian forces, is eligible to receive a one time outfit allowance of $450. She is entitled also to receive other benefits prescribed in the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian forces for officers of equal rank and status under similar conditions, e.g., overseas allowances, travelling allowances, and responsibility allowance.
January 25, 1967


SALARIES OF REGISTERED NURSES, VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Cowan: What are the basic rates of pay for registered nurses employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs?
Questions


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The salaries for a nurse 1 are as follows: $3,750, 3,900, 4,050, 4,200, 4,350, 4,500, 4,650, 4,800, 4,950.
1.	Rates $3,750 to 4,950, with increments at annual intervals, are normal rates for all nurse 1 positions except as provided hereunder.
2. Saskatoon Calgary
Rate $5,100 is to be added
3.	London Ottawa * Toronto Vancouver Victoria
Rates $5,100 and $5,300 to be added
Rates of pay on appointment Locations
With less than two years experience
With more than two years experience
All locations except those	Minimum Rate
hereunder
Edmonton
Montreal
Quebec
Winnipeg
Saskatoon
Calgary
Ottawa * Toronto London Vancouver Victoria
2nd Rate
4th Rate 5th Rate
6th Rate
2nd Rate 3rd Rate
5th Rate
6th Rate
7th Rate
* At present no nurses are employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs in Toronto.


PERMITS FOR PLACING FILL IN LAKE ONTARIO
Mr. Cowan: What permits have been issued by the Department of Public Works or the Department of Transport since 1920, under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, for the filling in of lake Ontario between the mouth of the Humber river and the mouth of the Etobicoke creek?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Navigable Waters Protection Act does not contain authority to issue permits. The land below high water mark in this area is the property of the province of Ontario unless alienated by them. Only the owner of the land would have authority to issue a permit to others to use his property for filling.
The Navigable Waters Protection Act provides authority for the minister to consider whether a fill would substantially affect navigation. It does not have any bearing on pollution, riparian rights or on any other factor.
One application was made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act since 1920 for a fill in lake Ontario located between the mouth of the Humber river and the mouth of the Etobicoke river (creek). In this case, the Minister of Public Works made a declaration, dated 14 May, 1966, that the fill did not substantially interfere with navigation and did not exceed $5000 in value. The fill was the property of the Chancellor Motel Limited, 163 Lakeshore road, Humber Bay, Toronto 14, Ontario.

January 25, 1967
Motions for Papers


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Thompson: 1.	What are the names and qualifications of the authors who were awarded grants by the centennial commission?
2.	What books have been published, if any, by each of these authors?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Would Your Honour please call motion No. 201? I ask that the remainder be allowed to stand.


GEOGRAPHICAL CO-ORDINATES RESPECTING BASE LINES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 201-Mr. Barnett:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States of America since the enactment by parliament on July 16, 1964, of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act having to do with the issuance by the governor in council of one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the act.
Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the documents which have been exchanged between the two governments are privileged, of course. It would certainly not be in the interests of the negotiations that are under way now between governments are privileged, or course. It the United States, Canada and other countries if there were a disclosure of these communications asked. Therefore I must ask my hon. friend on that account to either withdraw his motion or to consent to it being put over until the opportunity arises for both of us to discuss the matter.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad at least to discover from the minister that there are some documents on the subject matter of this motion. While we may have an argument on the advisability of tabling them at this time I do believe it might be advisable, in view of the circumstances, that we transfer this motion for discussion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the way to deal with a matter which obviously concerns privileged documents which, as the house has repeatedly said, should not be tabled, particularly when it is pointed out that important negotiations on that subject are under way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister knows that the hon. member has the right of option, and that he has asked that the motion be transferred for debate. This being the case the Chair has no alternative but to order that it be transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked for co-operation today in dealing with the large menu that he placed before the house. In order to ensure that co-operation, would he give favourable consideration to turning over the armed forces unification bill before second reading to the standing committee on national defence so the necessary evidence can be heard? Much of the discussion which will take place in the house will have been avoided by having the committee sit in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the quickest and most effective way of doing that is to complete within a day or two debate on second reading, and in fact the long discussion on the subject matter, and then refer the matter to the committee in question.


John George Diefenbaker: There was not too much co-operation in that answer.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister with reference to the statement he made the day before last regarding the appointment of a committee of the
January 25, 1967	COMMONS
cabinet to deal with foreign investment. The Prime Minister made note of the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had announced a number of guiding principles of good corporate behaviour in Canada and the Prime Minister said that the response to these guide lines has provided valuable information and insight into the role and conduct of foreign owned subsidiary companies in Canada.
In view of the Prime Minister's statement may I ask whether it is his intention to appoint the Minister of Trade and Commerce as a member of this committee, in view of the work he is doing with reference to the guide lines for foreign subsidiaries in Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to my hon. friend for advising me on the best manner of constituting a committee of ministers but I will point out to him that this is a small committee and that it will report to the cabinet of which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is a member. The report of that committee will be considered in cabinet. I will point out also that there is an interdepartmental committee working with the task force on which the Department of Trade and Commerce will be represented. I think I can reassure the hon. member that all members of the cabinet will have an important part to play in this work.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I wish to assure the Prime Minister that I was not trying to advise him on the cabinet. If I had, my recommendation would have been much more far reaching. I wish to ask him if the data which has been collected by the Minister of Trade and Commerce regarding the reactions to the guide lines of the various foreign subsidiaries will be made available to the cabinet committee and to the task force?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it will indeed, Mr. Speaker, as well as data which has been collected by agencies of the government including the Economic Council of Canada.


Michael Starr: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the exclusion of the Minister of Trade and Commerce from the task force under the chairmanship of the senior Minister without Portfolio, he does not think his views could be put forward in that committee at the same time as in the cabinet after the recommendations have been received?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will ask the hon. member whether he does not think that his question is argumentative?


John George Diefenbaker: I have a supplementary question which is not argumentative. Is the Prime Minister in agreement with the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that his question cannot be put in this way. An answer cannot be given as to the accuracy of a press report.


John George Diefenbaker: I was not asking for an opinion on the accuracy of the statement. I am asking whether government policy was enunciated yesterday in San Francisco. I am quoting from the Ottawa Journal of January 25, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce was quoted as saying:
-some Canadians attitudes on foreign investment giving rise to conflicting reports in the United States. Canada welcomes foreign capital regardless of these doubt-provoking remarks to the contrary from time to time.
Were those remarks representative of government policy and were they made after consultation following the return of the prodigal son?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In reply to the question of my hon. friend I will merely refer him to the old Chinese proverb that he is barking in the wrong camp.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to find out is in what camp this government is camping; is it the Gordon camp, the Pearson camp or indeed the finance camp?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are all in the same camp.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wish to ask him whether it is correct that a few weeks ago a member of the Company of Young Canadians by the name of Peter Mussalem, after a disturbing series of court actions, was sentenced to
12232	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry 14 days in prison for supplying liquor to a minor in the Delta area of the Northwest Territories. I believe the territorial circuit court reversed the sentence, but this young man was ordered out of the territory. Can the Prime Minister verify and comment on this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I cannot, but I will make inquiries.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if he can report to the house or comment upon a statement from Washington today to the effect that congress is considering an increase in the withholding tax on Canadian investments from 15 per cent to 30 per cent?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: I am sure the hon. gentleman and the house will be pleased to know the exemptions that have hitherto been applied to Canada will
remain in existence.


Eric Alfred Winkler: So that there will not be an error in the record, Mr. Speaker, earlier I asked the Minister of Finance a question about an announcement from Washington. I used the term "witholding tax" but I should have used the term "equalization tax". The answer, as I understand it, applied to the equalization tax.



NORTH VIET NAM-SUPPLYING OF MISSILES BY SOVIET UNION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order. I have the impression that this supplementary or second question is of the same nature as the first one, and therefore cannot be accepted.']
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that the minister has told us he has made Canada's position known to the United States government with respect to the cessation of the bombing of North Viet Nam, has the minister made known to the government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Canada's position with respect to the Soviet union supplying missiles and other weapons in North Viet Nam for the purpose of destroying United States aircraft? I ask this question because of the position of the government of the Soviet Union as co-chairman of the Geneva conference, and the consequent relationship to

DEBATES	January 25, 1967
Canada's position as one of the three members of the international control commission on Viet Nam.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did not hear all of the
question. I will study it and give an answer tomorrow.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: May I ask a supplementary question for the minister's consideration at the same time. Has the government established a position with respect to supplying missiles and other arms by the Soviet union to North Viet Nam?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but this is a very important matter and I want to give it careful consideration.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, strictly for the purpose of eliciting information, as usual. On January 16, as recorded on page 11824 of Hansard, the minister mentioned the meeting to be held at Saint Lucia later this month to discuss a certain course of assistance to be given by Canada to the Caribbean countries. In view of the new semiindependent status of several of the islands of the West Indies, and their need for substantial trade and economic assistance, will the minister make a statement tomorrow and inform the house of Canada's plans to co-operate with our friendly neighbours in the Caribbean?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not been keeping up with the activities of the government. The statement which he asks to be made tomorrow was made by the Prime Minister and my colleagues who were meeting with the Commonwealth Caribbean countries last July in Ottawa.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to bring the minister into the twentieth century. I am talking about a meeting to be held at the end of January, which is not far away. Would he tell us immediately about that meeting, the plans for co-operation, and what Canada's suggestions are for assisting our friendly neighbours in the Caribbean?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: That, Mr. Speaker, is a rather constructive question to which I
January 25, 1967	COMMONS
can readily give a reply. If my hon. friend will read the statement made by the Prime Minister at the conference in July-


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have read it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -he will see it was agreed that we would meet on the official level to take steps to implement the announcement of government policy made by the Prime Minister at that conference.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister inform the house whether his meeting or meetings with insurance company officials and others resulted in agreement on necessary legislative action? If so, when may we expect the minister to introduce such legislation?


Mitchell William Sharp: I had very useful discussions with the general insurance companies, the Canadian companies that write fire, theft and accident insurance, on possible improvements in legislation. They made a number of suggestions to us and we made a number of suggestions to them. My officials are preparing some drafts which will be discussed shortly with the industry. Then I expect I will be bringing forward some legislation. I cannot predict now when that will be. I should add, however, that the Canadian companies, while they felt some improvement in legislation was possible, did not feel the failure of North American General was a serious blow to the reputation of Canadian insurance companies.


David Lewis: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's reply, I should like to ask whether his officials are considering legislation concerned with the interests of policy-holders and Canada's economy, or whether they are considering legislation concerned with the interests of general insurance companies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, the interests of policyholders are very much involved in the reputation of the insurance companies themselves.


Raymond Langlois: May I ask a supplementary question?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Athabasca. There have been two supplementary questions and we have to move on, since there are only 30 minutes for questions today.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is it true that the Minister of National Defence has reversed the decision of the defence staff to put pipers into a different category from musicians?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Yes, Mr. Speaker. An announcement was made today that the decision to separate pipers from musicians in the recently announced new trade classification has been reversed. Henceforth pipers will be in the same category as musicians for all matters, including trades pay. As the immortal Robbie Burns might have put it:
Their skills and craft hae put me daft,
They've ta'en me in, and a' that;
So pipers now musicians are Wi a' their blaw and a' that!


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a supplementary question for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Now that the Minister of National Defence is in the mood, is he going to make a few more reversals?


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. May I say that I certainly appreciated the accent of the associate minister in his reply; it was excellent. In view of the fact that today is the anniversary of the birthday of that great Scot, Robert Burns, and in view of the fact I am sure the Prime Minister has a very soft spot in his heart for all the Scots who have contributed and are contributing to this country, may I ask the right hon. gentleman if the government would give consideration to issuing a stamp, during this centennial year, as has been done in the past not only by Britain but by the Soviet union, to honour Burns and all the Scots in this country?
January 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Well, of course, nothing would give me greater pleasure than to give consideration to that proposal.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafonfaine):: Could the Minister of Transport inform the house if the hon. member for Lapointe, since his return from a holiday in Martinique, has requested the assistance of federal government icebreakers for those winter trips between his constituency of Lapointe and the port of Montreal by way of the St. Lawrence river aboard his $15,000 luxury yacht purchased last summer in Toronto, Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Georges-C. Lachance: I wish to discuss the matter at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Agriculture. The question pertains to an announcement made the other day by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that Canada was going to spend $400,000 to buy dairy cattle to help the flood stricken people in Italy. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is a fact that only Holstein cattle are to be purchased for shipment to Italy. If so, can he explain why the taxpayers' money is not being used to purchase other breeds of dairy cattle as well?


Hon.  J. J. Greens@Minister of Agriculture: Mr. Speaker, I am rather astonished to find my hon. friend is prejudiced against Hol-steins. I should like to instruct him that the choice of cattle purchased lies with Italy. We provide the funds, but they choose the cattle they wish.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I would not want the minister to get away with the statement that I am prejudiced against Holstein cattle. I am not, but I am interested in the sale of all breeds of dairy cattle purchased with the taxpayers' money.
[Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria).!


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kooienay Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources which is of national importance. Has the minister's attention been drawn to press dispatches from Washington to the effect that the United States has taken advantage of the Columbia River treaty agreement to raise the existing Grand Coulee dam capacity from 2 million kilowatts to 9.2 million kilowatts, and that they are frankly curious as to how Canada's remaining hydro resources will be developed? Will the minister make inquiries as to the reason for this jubilation on the part of the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question may be of great importance, but I doubt whether it is acceptable in the way it is now asked. I understand that the hon. member would like to have a statement on the part of the minister. Perhaps the minister will do this on another occasion.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
question which is supplementary to the question you have ruled out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member to ask another question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of these unexpected and recent developments with regard to increasing power production on the Columbia in the United States, did the minister anticipate these developments when he was assuring the standing committee on external affairs, when it was studying the Columbia River treaty, that half of the power production on the Columbia in the United States would be returned to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that this supplementary or second question is of the same nature as the first one, and therefore cannot be accepted.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
January 25, 1967

either to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, or to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Registrar General of Canada, or to either one of the parliamentary secretaries with respect to the legislation on fishing vessels.
Is the minister to which my question applies considering the possibility of appointing a parliamentary committee to review the various bankruptcies which have occurred, so that justice may be done to those persons affected by them?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Acting Registrar General when he returns.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in this our centennial year our highways will be taxed to the limit, will the Prime Minister make a statement now or within a few days and tell this house precisely where the government stands on the important aspects of highway safety, and what may be expected by way of leadership on the problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it would be appropriate on orders of the day to make a statement of that kind, which would be fairly lengthy. However, I can say that I had a very useful meeting with my colleague the Minister of Industry and members of the Canadian Highway Council the morning before last, when we assured them of our co-operation in the work that they are doing. Perhaps at a suitable opportunity the minister concerned will be able to make a statement in more detail.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-
Tisdale): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. When will the Carter report on taxation be presented to the house?
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, may I answer this question because I think I have some later information than the Prime Minister. It is my hope that the Carter commission report, at least the first five volumes, will be submitted to me during the month of February, and I hope to table it as soon as I receive it.


Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of statements made yesterday by one of the members of the Carter royal commission and the chairman of the Canadian Tax Foundation, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he agrees with Mr. Vineberg that Canadians will be profoundly shocked and will suffer pain and anguish from the contents of the Carter report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of the question asked by the hon. member for Saskatoon may I ask whether Mr. Vineberg, one of the members of the commission, was correct when he said that the report would be made public on a Saturday, possibly February 11, 18 or 25, to avoid affecting the stock markets during trading hours. Was he also correct in the prediction that he made as to its contents, and the fact that a capital gains tax, not retroactive in effect, would be one of the recommendations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman is more familiar with the views of this commission, which he appointed, than I would be. I have not read this report. I have the same information as is reported in the newspapers about the possible dates, but I really do not know anything more than that.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Canada Labour Relations Board has just refused to recognize normal bargaining units, with regard to the request made by the Angus factory workers, would the government finally agree to amend the federal Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation
January 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Act, so as to allow such normal bargaining units?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, an inquiry by experts is being undertaken at the present time into the field of labour legislation. Until they make their report to the government it would be premature to say what might or might not be done in this field.


Maurice Allard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Prime Minister aware that on October 25 last, 35 federal Liberal members from Quebec spoke publicly in favour of normal bargaining units?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is out of order.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he has seen the report emanating from Washington today indicating that the examiner for the federal power commission states that the commission will not make a decision on the Trans-Canada application until late this fall, and that there may be another two years delay as a result of commission hearings and court procedures. In light of this, is the minister contemplating asking the cabinet to ask the National Energy Board to reassess the situation with a view to twinning the line in northern Ontario immediately because of shortages of natural gas in both northern Ontario and southern Ontario?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question stems either from the imagination of the newspaperman or of the hon. member; the suggestion is not to be found in the examiner's commentaries. With respect to the other point, I am quite sure that the hon. member is aware that an application would have to be made to the National Energy Board to do this. It would be entirely illegal to proceed otherwise.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question. Is the minister not of the opinion that the National Energy Board also has a responsibility to the Canadian government in-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now asking the minister to express an opinion and this, of course, is not in order.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I promised to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Prince about possible delays in construction projects undertaken by the Atlantic Development Board. The information that I have from the board is that no construction projects have been delayed because of staff shortages, but some economic planning studies have been held up due to difficulties in obtaining staff with the necessary qualifications. I could give the hon. gentleman a list of those studies.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder whether the Prime Minister might consider contacting his parliamentary secretary, who is now on special assignment in west and north Africa, to see whether his itinerary might be diverted to enable him to visit central and east Africa to meet at first hand some of the 1,000 Canadians in that area who are serving under the external aid branch and CUSO, and who are reported to be complaining bitterly that they are forgotten men as far as the Canadian government is concerned.
May I ask further, if this is not possible, whether the Prime Minister would consider setting up a regional external aid office in the area so these dedicated representatives who serve Canada so ably might have more effective co-ordination and direction, which is so essential.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend's question has undoubtedly been inspired by a story in a morning newspaper. The Prime Minister suggested that I reply to this question. I think
January 25, 1967	COMMONS
there is some justification for the allegations made in that story. In answer thereto I would simply say that the closing of the office in Salisbury has been partly responsible for the problems in Malawi and Zambia. I believe the situation will be corrected by the staff that has been sent to Kenya under the new ambassador.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Leader of the Opposition asked me whether the question of Mr. von Thadden appearing on C.B.C. television had been considered by the corporation's board of directors.
I am informed by the president of the C.B.C. that no formal reference was made to the C.B.C. board of directors, as the decision to withdraw the invitation to Mr. von Thadden to come to Canada and, instead, to interview him in Germany fell within established policy. In view of the widespread publicity surrounding the matter, C.B.C. management took the precaution of consulting some members of the board individually.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister if the C.B.C. management consulted with members of the board about the name mentioned by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have not any such information.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I also answer a question posed by the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa with respect to the confederation train. The hon. member suggested that during the three days the train would be in Portage la Prairie it would not be open all the time. I am informed by the officials in charge that during the three days-Saturday, Sunday and Monday-the train will be in Portage, it will be open for the entire period. I think hon. members should realize that there is only one
Inquiries of the Ministry train. It will be on the road for 331 days this year and will be unavailable to the "public only for 15J days, 10J of which are to be taken up with travelling and 5, it is anticipated, for servicing.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. One of the very few items on the order paper to which the Prime Minister did not refer when he gave the list of business for the remainder of this session is the bill under the ministers name having to do with protecting pension rights and benefits in plans coming under federal jurisdiction. Will that legislation be proceeded with during the course of this session?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister did not mean to leave that out. Probably there is the suggestion, by inference, that smaller bills of this kind might be put in at odd times-


Lester Bowles Pearson: Non-controversial items.


Mitchell William Sharp: Non-controversial matters such as this may be introduced at any time. I am ready to introduce this at any time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the way to make a bill controversial; call it non-controversial.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on a statement recently released by the presidents of the universities of Canada, that the most urgent responsibility for universities is to train graduate students as teachers, scientists and professional leaders. Keeping in mind that construction of new buildings has been stimulated by the federal health resources fund of $500 million, also that unless appropriate provisions are made to meet the demands of personnel the new buildings might not have the staff or the scientific equipment with which to operate, can the Prime Minister say whether the federal government will consider aiding the provinces in this urgent manpower need?
January 25, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend on the importance of the question. At the last federal-provincial conference we made proposals which will result in increased assistance to the provinces. The hon. member may also recall that in the list of legislative proposals I mentioned was a bill for further assistance to post-secondary education. Our proposals will be made at that time, and I hope that will be soon.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister. Some time before Christmas I asked the right hon. gentleman when the final report of the B and B commission would be available. At that time he felt it would be filed before Christmas. Could he shed more light on the matter at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can throw a little more light on it, Mr. Speaker. It is hoped that the report of this important commission will be made this summer. I certainly hope it will be.


William Skoreyko: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I hate to disagree with the Prime Minister when he calls it an important commission


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should not argue; he should ask his question.


William Skoreyko: I disagree that the commission-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows he should not say that. He cannot enter into an argument. He may ask a supplementary question.


William Skoreyko: In view of the delay, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell this house how many more thousands of dollars must be spent by the government of Canada on this absolutely ridiculous commission?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired.


[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, January 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof, and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee
resumed consideration on clause 74 and the amendment moved thereto yesterday afternoon, the hon. member for Bow River, on a point of order, rose to speak about the validity of the amendment. A number of committee members made statements for which I am grateful. At the end of these the committee extended to me time to examine the statements made. For that I am also grateful.
I apologize for not having been able to make a ruling last evening. Considering the fundamental rules of procedure involved and the complexity of the bill before the committee I thought it wise to take enough time to read the statements of hon. members, to read the citations referred to, and to compare the two proposals involved. I have done that and am prepared to rule if the committee wishes that I do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee wish me to do that now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can it be understood that clause 1, on which the committee was proceeding last night, shall stand? When Your Honour has made his ruling we shall be on clause 74 and not clause 1.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The officials at the table advise me that when the committee rose last evening, clause 1 and the amendment of the hon. member for Calgary South were being considered. Is it the wish of the committee that clause 1 stand, and that I proceed with the ruling on the point of order, on clause 74 and the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
January 25, 1967

On clause 74.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Yesterday, when the amendment proposed by the Minister of Fisheries to clause 74 of Bill C-231 was being considered by the committee, the hon. member for Bow River raised a point of order concerning the validity of the proposed amendment.
In his submission, the hon. member for Bow River contended that a question being made once and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house-particularly in respect of one bill and more particularly in respect of one clause. The hon. member went on to say that the Minister of Fisheries, in his proposed amendment to clause 74, is really trying to repeat what was set out in subsection 329 of clause 50 upon which a decision of the committee had already been taken. The hon. member also suggested that there was not sufficient variance in this amendment to constitute a new question.
Included in the authorities used in support of his point of order, the hon. member referred to citations 284 and 285, Beauchesne's third edition, and to citations 162 and 163 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which are to be found on pages 136 and 137.
The Chair has read very carefully the submission made by the hon. member for Bow River and the citations to which he referred. Citations 284 and 285 of Beauchesne's third edition are essentially the same as citations 162 and 163 of his fourth edition. I should like to read citation 162 and also 163 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, now, as found on page 136.
A resolution may be rescinded and an order of the house discharged, notwithstanding a rule urged, "that a question, being once made and carried in the affirmative or negative cannot be questioned again, but must stand as a judgment of the house." Technically indeed, the rescinding of a vote is the matter of a new question; the form being to read the resolution of the house and to move that it be rescinded; and thus the same question which had been resolved in the affirmative is not again offered, although its effect is annulled.
To rescind a negative vote, except on the different stages of bills, is a proceeding of greater difficulty, because the same question would have to be offered again. The only means, therefore, by which a negative vote can be revoked, is by proposing another question, similar in its general purport to that which has been rejected, but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question, and the house would determine whether it were substantially the same question or not...
Sometimes the house may not be prepared to rescind a resolution, but may be willing to modify
Transportation
its judgment by considering and agreeing to another resolution relating to the same object. Thus, a resolution having been agreed to which condemned an official appointment, the house by a subsequent resolution withdrew the censure which the previous resolution had conveyed.
May I now proceed to citation 163:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session. It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
The Chair considers that citation 163 of Beauchesne's third edition, deals explicitly with the second paragraph of citation 285 of Beauchesne's third edition, deals explicitly with the question of order now before the committee.
The importance of this citation to the question now before the committee was underlined by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition when he specifically referred to it in his submission.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, in his contribution considered citation 163 as extremely relevant to the point of order before the committee.
In a most interesting contribution by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, reference was made to citations from Bourinot's fourth edition and May's fifteenth edition. In presenting his supporting authorities the hon. member dealt in the main with the proposition that-
-a motion or amendment may not be brought forward which is the same, in substance, as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows: No question or bill shall be offered in either house that is substantially the same as one on which its judgment has already been expressed in the current session.
The Chair has also carefully considered the contributions made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Acadia and, of course, the Minister of Transport as well as other hon. members.
In summary it would appear to the Chair that there is no disagreement either from the minister or from the other members who participated in the debate that a question once decided by the committee cannot be raised again in the same form in the same session. The real question is the application of the

January 25. 1967
Transportation
rules. This was well stated by the hon. member for Peace River when he said this:
The rules are there and the minister is not quarelling with them. The issue is the application of those rules to the fairly specific facts of this case. With this in mind, Mr. Chairman, what is the real pith and substance, the core or the root of what the amendment is trying to achieve? I submit we must compare the amendment with what the proposed section 329, which was struck out, attempted to do.
What is the rule? After considering all the authorities cited by hon. members it appears that the rule which most specifically applies to the present question is 163 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 137, and I pray the indulgence of the committee for reading it again:
A mere alteration of the words of a question, without any substantial change in its object will not be sufficient to evade the rule that no question shall be offered which is substantially the same as one which has already been expressed in the current session. It is possible, however, so far to vary the character of a motion as to withdraw it from the operation of the rule.
The problem which the Chair has to decide is whether or not the amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries is sufficiently different from subclause 329 of clause 50 as to constitute a substantially different question.
In the final analysis the decision must rest on a judgment as to whether the two propositions are similar or substantially different. Hon. members will recognize that due to the complexity of the legislation it has been necessary in arriving at a decision, to make a very careful examination of the propositions enunciated in subclause 329 of clause 50 and the amendment moved by the Minister of Fisheries to clause 74.
In my judgment the two proposals are substantially different and for the following reasons:


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Shameful ruling.


Herman Maxwell Batten: 1. Subclause 329 of clause 50 dealt with statutory rates on the carriage of grain and grain products in western Canada. On the other hand, the proposed amendment deals with the whole field of statutory and other rates. This, in the opinion of the Chair, constitutes a substantial difference.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
2.	Subclause 329 of clause 50 would have provided for a single review. On the other hand the proposed amendment to clause 74 provides for continuing reviews. I also consider this to be an essential difference.
[The Chairman.]
3.	Subclause 329 of clause 50 would have provided for a mandatory review. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to clause 74 provides for reviews on application by the railway companies. I suggest that this is a further substantial difference.
Some hon. members have argued that while these two approaches are different the effect would be the same. This too is a matter of judgment, but not for the Chair.
I was impressed by the submission made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre when, in dealing with citation 163 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, he stated that in comparing the two proposals the word "object" was crucial to the discussion. I have given particular attention to this point of view in arriving at my decision, but for the reasons which I have given in my comparisons of the two proposals I am of the opinion that the objects are substantially different in each case. Therefore I propose to accept the amendment and to submit it to the committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A shameful ruling; a partisan ruling.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the committee is grateful for the care and attention you have given to this ruling but regretfully, sir, I must appeal the ruling to the Speaker.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, the question is an appeal to Mr. Speaker from a decision of the chairman of the committee of the whole pursuant to section 4 of standing order 59. In committee of the whole when clause 74 of Bill C-231 was being considered, the hon. Minister of Fisheries proposed an amendment as follows:
"(a) by striking out lines 35 to 38, inclusive, on page 62 of the Bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
Reductions "468A. (1) The reductions in rates continued. that, immediately before the coming into force of Part V of the National Transportation Act, were in force by virtue of section 468 continue in force subject to subsections (2) to (4)."
(b)	by striking out line 30 on page 63 of the Bill, as reprinted, and by substituting therefor the following:
"that are subject to Order No. 96300 of the"
(c)	by adding immediately at the end of page 64 of the Bill, as reprinted, the following:
Definitions. "470. (1) In this section,
"Statutory	(a) "statutory rate" means a rate
rate."	for the carriage of any commodity between points in Canada maintained for the public
January 25, 1967

"Substituted
rate."
benefit at a rate or level of rates specified in this or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada; and
(b) "substituted rate" means a rate fixed by the Commission under this Act or substituted for any rate disallowed by the Commission pursuant to this Act.
Application. (2) Subject to subsection (3), a railway company under the jurisdiction of Parliament may make an application to the Commission to investigate the revenues and costs attributable to the carriage of any commodity by the company at a statutory rate or substituted rate.
(3) No application shall be made under subsection (2)
Limitation.	(a) in the case of a statutory rate,
until after the expiration of two years from the coming into force of this section, and (b) in the case of a substituted rate, until after the expiration of two years from the day that the substituted rate became effective.
Report and (4) After an investigation under this recommen- section, the Commission shall report dation.	its findings thereon to the Governor
in Council and shall recommend in its report the amount of payments, if any required in the opinion of the Commission to assist the company to meet its costs of operation in respect of the carriage of any commodity at a statutory rate or substituted rate."
Whereupon the hon. member for Bow River raised a point of order to the effect that the amendment endeavoured to reintroduce into the bill a provision which had been set out in subclause 329 of clause 50, and since that subclause had been deleted from the bill by a vote of the committee and that as there was not sufficient variance in the amendment to clause 74 to constitute a new section, the vote on subclause 329 must stand as the judgment of the committee.
The Chair ruled that in his judgment the two proposals are substantially different for the following reasons:
1.	Subclause 329 of clause 50 dealt with statutory rates on the carriage of grain and grain products in western Canada. On the other hand, the proposed amendment deals with the whole field of statutory and other rates. This, in the opinion of the Chair, was a substantial difference.
2.	Subclause 329 of clause 50 would have provided for a single review. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to clause 74 provides for continuing reviews. The Chair also considered this to be a substantial difference.
3.	Subclause 329 of clause 50 would have provided for a mandatory review. On the other hand, the proposed amendment to clause 74 provides for reviews on applications by the railway companies. It was the opinion of the Chair that this too was a further substantial difference.
Therefore, for the reasons just stated, the chair ruled the amendment to be in order. Whereupon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre appealed the chairman's ruling to the Speaker.
Transportation


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the argument in reference to the appeal which is before you, if it is possible I should like to speak to a point of order within the point of order with reference to the appeal. With the greatest respect, since the ruling is so important, particularly the last part, I should like to ask that we go on with something else until we have a copy of the chairman's judgment. In making my argument I would suggest that this is such a serious matter that it affects not only the Railway Act itself but, in my opinion and in the opinion of many other members to whom I have spoken in the past few moments, the very rules which make up this parliament. In our opinion this action now would allow the minister to do again what he once did. We should like to have a copy of the chairman's judgment, particularly where he differentiated between section 329 and the amendment to clause 74.
We should like to have a copy of that judgment so that we would be in a position to intelligently and logically and properly answer it. I feel there should be an opportunity to have a proper appeal and have the facts laid very carefully before you. As a result of my experience over a period of nine years in this house under different speakers I have a great deal of confidence that you will weigh the facts and the law most carefully. Although this is not criticism of anyone, I am a little surprised that copies have not been made available to members who took an active part in the argument yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not too sure what can be done about circulating a copy of the judgment. I appreciate, however, that it might be difficult for hon. members on both sides of the house to argue either in support of or in opposition to the judgment of the chairman without having that judgment before them. I also would like to have an opportunity to study it. I am open to suggestions from members of the house on this particular point.
Mr. V/oolliams: May I make the suggestion that since we still have clause 1 before us, without delaying the proceedings we might, with the consent of the Minister of Transport and other hon. members, go on with that debate while some of us study the judgment so that we will be in a position more intelligently to argue the case on appeal before you. We believe the decision which Your Honour will make will be one which is on something that is very fundamental. We also feel that if the amendment of the minister is allowed to stand, parliament will be usurped.

January 25, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Bow River who has made a very reasonable suggestion, in which I had intended to join him, on reflection would wish to withdraw the last few words he used. If he would do that, I would join with him in the suggestion that the hearing of the appeal be adjourned so that we might carry on with something else, because I feel just as strongly as he does on this matter. After all, it was my motion. This sometimes seems to be forgotten. I think I too should be given the opportunity to judge and weigh this matter. I listened very carefully and the judgment did say that this is a very intricate matter. I agree. I think that all of us who are concerned with preserving the rules of the house would wish that Your Honour should hear a most considered presentation before the appeal is determined.
I am sure the hon. gentleman, when speaking with some warmth, did not wish to reflect on the Chair. I would suggest that Your Honour leave the chair and that we proceed in the way which the hon. member for Bow River has suggested. We could go on with clause 1. There also is an amendment in respect of it which perhaps could be disposed of. Also there may be some further general debate. I am not sure we would wish to carry clause 1 before we finally have determined the other matter, but we might spend some time on it. I fully recognize, as does the hon. member, how important it is that we uphold the rules of the house and have a right decision, whichever way it may go.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I think these suggestions should be carefully considered by Your Honour. We now are dealing with a new rule in respect of appeal to the Speaker. It is on a different basis than it was in recent years. This particular problem of whether the ruling of the Chairman should be placed in the hands of the members is something which has not cropped up before.
Under these circumstances-and this may apply in the future-I think when the house is considering a subject which is as serious as this that we should have a break and that members of the house should not immediately be called upon to argue the point of order before Mr. Speaker, without having a full opportunity to study the judgment of the Chairman. It happens, in this particular debate, that we could go back into committee to deal with clause 1. We may in the future have occasions when we would not have anything

quite so convenient to go back to; nevertheless, it is important that we have an opportunity to study the judgment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member of course is suggesting a change in the rules. I believe however that it would be the part of wisdom to deal with this particular case, which I think is complicated enough, and forget about what might happen in future circumstances.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In this particular instance obviously there is unanimity that hon. members be given an opportunity to study the ruling of the Chairman of the committee of the whole. Therefore I propose to leave the chair, so the committee may resume its work which was interrupted when consideration of clause 1 commenced.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wonder whether the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) would withdraw the last few words of his closing sentence, which did not seem to relate to the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding that the hon. member for Bow River indicated he meant no reflection on the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last to cast reflection. I may have used the words "could usurp parliament". I should like to thank Your Honour for giving us an opportunity to consider this ruling. It is important and I appreciate that generosity exercised within your discretion. I do not know when our remarks will be heard on this subject, but we will have some time to consider it, particularly if copies are made available.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer one point to your honour for consideration in relation to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). Because of unusual and important circumstances the question at issue, as referred to in the judgment of the Chairman of the committee, does not actually involve an interpretation of the rules. It is not a question of law but rather a question of fact.
Perhaps Your Honour would consider the suggestion that under similar circumstances when questions of fact must be decided they be referred to members of the house, and that when questions involving only interpretation of the rules are involved they be referred to Your Honour for decision. I just throw that
January 25, 1967

suggestion out for Your Honour's consideration.
And the house having resumed in committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The committee will now proceed to a consideration of clause 1 and the amendment moved thereto by the hon. member for Calgary South.
On clause 1-National Transportation Policy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman's amendment was not actually put to the committee last night. That was at my request, because I wished to consider overnight whether this kind of amendment is competent to be moved under this bill.
I was quite tired last night and perhaps my faculties were not all they should have been, but when looking at the amendment I felt it went beyond the scope of the bill, in the same way the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nickel Belt went beyond its scope.
I realize that this is not strictly speaking a point of order, but there is another problem we must consider, and that is whether or not the amendment seeks to do something which, if it were to have any legislative effect, could only be done after an amendment to the constitution had been made and, perhaps in all cases, could be done only by a provincial legislature. I do not particularly want to enter a discussion on that point, but perhaps your honour would consider it.
This bill seeks to lay down a national railway policy, but does not in any way seek to make any provision in respect of municipal affairs, municipal taxation, the apportionment of municipal taxation or the appropriate burden to be borne by one person in a municipality as compared with another.
As to whether this amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill, it might be argued that clause 1 is only declaratory of principles, and that it has no operative effect, though it is intended to guide those who will make decisions in respect of those clauses which do have an operative effect. It does seem to me that it would be rather difficult for these proposed amendments to be related in any way to any of the operative parts of the bill. Perhaps your honour would consider the question as to whether this amendment does go beyond the scope of the bill.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I am entitled to speak to the merits, but before attempting to do so I wish to deal with the point referred by the minister for your
Transportation
honour's consideration. If you read the amendment you will note, as the minister pointed out, that it suggests there be an insertion to the declaration of policy or intent. It cannot be considered that any part of clause 1 constitutes an imperative or mandatory direction to the government. It simply suggests that in the view of this house the national transportation policy should contain certain things, and that the government and the Transport Commission to be appointed should take into account certain things in rendering a judgment.
The hon. member for Calgary South was careful in his amendment and included the words "so far as practicable". That is very important because those words can be stretched far enough to include a direction to the commission and the government to do something so far as practicable within the terms of our constitutional limitations. If an argument in this regard is to be raised in a serious way I hope the minister will direct our attention to the specific statutes which might constitute a constitutional barrier. I think I have an idea what they are.
Not only does the argument in respect of this amendment involve a constitutional aspect, it involves, as the minister has stated more peremptorily, the question as to whether it goes beyond the original scope of the bill.
The amendment in part states:
(ii) each mode transport, so far as practicable and without prejudice to any single mode, bears a fair proportion of the costs of local government services in those municipalities in which the mode of transport operates.
I think by this amendment the Transport Commission is being directed in its deliberation to bear this in mind. Surely that was the purpose of the hon. member for Calgary South, and it is a very laudable purpose. I can recall that not so very many years ago the city of Winnipeg initiated proceedings, which went as far as the Supreme Court of Canada, and possibly as far as the Privy Council, challenging the right of the Canadian Pacific Railway to exempt itself from the payment of local taxes in this way. I remember that case well because I was involved at that time in a consideration of other aspects which dealt with Crowsnest pass rates.
Many of us in the west feel that if the C.P.R. was right in one instance in insisting on a rigid adherence to the letter of the law, the statutes and statutory contracts, it should adhere to the letter of the law so far as

January 25, 1967
Transportation
statutory rates are concerned. At that time the railway companies were making a very great "to do" about trying to get out of the Crowsnest pass rates, on the basis that they were not compensatory. This is all that I will say on the merits of the amendment. I strongly support the very reasoned and excellent arguments made by the hon. member for Calgary South.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
On the question of the point of order I wish to direct Your Honour's attention to what I have brought out previously on the use of the words "as far as practicable," plus the fact that it is not a mandatory direction to the government or to the board but simply a statement of very sound, sensible and wise policy. Of course in the implementation of that policy the Transport Commission will be guided and bound by the more specific rules which are contained in other parts of the legislation. Therefore I ask Your Honour to rule that the amendment is in order, and that in expressing its views the committee may be divided on this amendment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words with respect to the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport. I gather that he has raised it seriously and is asking your honour to rule whether or not the amendment moved by the hon. member for Calgary South is in order. In addition to the arguments just made by the hon. member for Peace River, may I ask your honour to take note of subclause (b) of clause 1 which immediately precedes the spot at which the hon. member for Calgary South would insert his additional words. Subclause (b) as it appears on page 12149 of Hansard of January 23 reads as follows:
(b) each mode ot transport, so far as practicable, bears a fair proportion of the real costs of the resources, facilities and services provided that mode of transport at public expense;
The hon. member for Calgary South proposed that that paragraph be followed immediately by the following subclause: each mode of transport, so far as practicable and without prejudice to any single mode, bears a fair proportion of the costs of local government services in those municipalities in which the mode of transport operates; and...
It seems to me that there is a substantial degree of similarity between these two subclauses. If the one which the government wishes to appear in clause 1, which is now in the name of the Minister of Public Works, is within the scope of the bill and is intra vires of the powers of the federal parliament, then

the same thing follows with respect to the other one. There is a reference in the government's subclause to resources without identifying them, and we know who has the responsibility for natural resources in this country. There is also a reference to facilities and services provided at public expense without specifying at what level of public expense.
If it is in order for the government to ask these points to be considered in relation to areas which may be federal, provincial or municipal, why is it not in order for the hon. member for Calgary South to ask for the same thing? In other words, I think the hon. member for Calgary South is simply making very clear one particular aspect of what is set out in the government's subclause (b). The government might have argued that since the cost of public services is mentioned in subclause (b), what the hon. member for Calgary South is asking for is covered. He is simply asking that it be clarified.
Therefore, taking up the two points that the minister has raised, namely the scope of the bill and the question of whether it is ultra vires or intra vires, I would suggest that on both counts if subclause (b) as proposed by the government is in order, then so is the addition proposed by the hon. member for Calgary South. I would therefore support the request made by the hon. member for Peace River that Your Honour find the amendment in order.


Mr. Olson:: I have listened to the statement made by the Minister of Transport in support of the argument that the amendment is out of order, in that it becomes a matter ultra vires of this parliament and of part of the constitution. I do not understand why the content of this amendment would be a violation of the constitution rather than dealing with railway statutes and agreements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to address myself to that point in direct reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Subparagraph (b), or is it subclause (b)-some day I will take a course in terminology so as to know how to refer to the segments of the bill, and then I will probably be defeated-


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: There may be plenty of time yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not on this bill, I hope. Subclause (b), whether or not it can be interpreted in the very ingenious way in which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre
January 25, 1967

sought to interpret it, is designed to deal only with those matters over which parliament has legislative competence. "Resources", as used in this subclause, does not mean natural resources. It means public resources, public facilities and public services that are used by a carrier, such as airports. An airport is a very good example, and so is a meteorological service. I suppose also that the National Transcontinental railway is a good example. It is a public facility belonging to the Crown, used by the C.N.R.
What is meant here is that, so far as practicable, a carrier should bear a reasonable share of the costs of airports instead of that cost being charged to the taxpayers. This is entirely within federal jurisdiction and it is a principle which could be applied in an adjudication by the commissioner or by the courts in relation to matters which are entirely within the scope of the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament.
The C.P.R. case is a special one. In so far as any other mode of transport such as the National Transcontinental railway or the Prince Edward Island railway or any of the Crown-owned railways which do not pay taxes is concerned, it is rather academic to raise this matter because the government has indicated quite clearly that it intends as a matter of policy to pay grants equal to the tax which would be paid anyway, and this does not require any legislation because it is possible for the government to authorize that now.
However, the real problem which I have with this wording is that in any adjudication under the power of the commission, which is supposed to take into account the principles as set out here, there would be an implication that the commission should do something about this, or perhaps it is just a humble prayer and petition to the carriers.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If it is thought that the commission should do anything about it, is this not what would happen? The requirement that each mode of transport, so far as practicable, bear a fair proportion of the cost of local government services in those municipalities in which the mode of transport operates would, it seems to me, place the commission in the position of being required to make a study of what constituted a fair proportion of the cost of local government services. This would of necessity, require the commission to review the cost of local government services, and what others were contributed. Fairness is not something
Transportation
you pick out of the air. Surely, it is something you determine in relation to what somebody else is doing. There would no doubt be a determination of the total cost of services, and the contribution made by taxpayers and groups of taxpayers. It does not seem to me that any of these consequences could flow from the importation of those words into clause 1.
Consequences could flow from the present clause 1(b). It is quite clear the commission could decide that air lines were not paying an adequate proportion of the cost of the services they were receiving from airports or from the meteorological service. I just pick that illustration out of the air as an example of what is really intended-or that the wharfage being paid at ports was not a sufficient contribution by the carriers using the facilities provided at ports. It does not seem to me there would be any way, without intruding into matters that are not within our jurisdiction, of making any kind of inquiry whatever to determine whether the consequences that should flow from this provision would, in fact, flow from it.
If for example a municipality made application to the commission to have an investigation made to ascertain whether carrier X was paying a fair share of the cost of services in the city of Saint John, would the commission be able to hear that application? How would it go about making a determination? How would it go about establishing any jurisdiction to make a determination. It seems to me it is far better to rely upon the laws of those who have the power to make laws that are applicable.
We have the agreement of Canadian Pacific Railway to a constitutional amendment at any time we can get the appropriate constitutional amendment at Westminster or here, if the hon. member for Kamloops should ever be successful in his valiant effort, which I commend and commended at the time, to repatriate our constitution. This would be even better, so far as I am concerned. If such a course was possible, I would be the first to support that action. I understand that in another century this House of Commons used to pass resolutions from time to time in favour of home rule for Ireland. I suppose that matter would scarcely come within the legislative jurisdiction of this parliament. These resolutions were not put into statutory form, it is true. However, I have always been just a little bit allergic to putting these declamatory statements into statutes, although I did vote

January 25, 1967
Transportation
for some very grandiloquent suggestions of that kind introduced by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the opposition. Perhaps my enthusiasm was more restrained than his was, but I still voted for it.
It may not be very serious to have this declaration in the bill if everyone understands that it was an expression of a pious hope, nothing more. A lot of people do not understand the distinction between our jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. I would be a little fearful, although I am sure the hon. member for Calgary South would not have any such intention, that ordinary citizens might think we were going to compel somebody to do something if this provision was in the bill. I just do not like to deceive people because we could not compel anybody to do anything. Whether or not this amendment is in order, I really do not like the amendment very much because it seems to me it could have no positive legislative effect. I think it might arouse hopes and expectations which, because they could not be realized, would tend to discredit us as legislators. I believe it is a sound principle of legislating to try, so far as possible, to make laws that could have some effect, and not to make laws that are merely expressive of aspirations.
Having said that, sir, I really do not feel that the world would come to an end if this amendment was held to be in order rather than out of order. I do feel it is probably beyond the scope of the bill. It does suggest we are trying to enter into a field where it is really beyond the scope of this parliament to legislate effectively. I know that is not against the rules. We could make a law here dealing with property and civil rights if we wanted to do so. However, it would not be law after the courts got at it. There is nothing to stop us from making such a purported law. I believe that the only possible place for the amendment would be in clause 1. I do not know of any other place in the bill in which you could possibly put it.
Clause 1 does set out certain principles. In so far as other public agencies are concerned which make use of the facilities of municipalities, such as railways, the harbours board, post offices and other public buildings, we have accepted the principle that we should not shelter behind the immunity of the crown but should make an appropriate contribution. Perhaps it would not be too much to say we think that pipe lines-and that is what we would be saying-interprovincial

bus lines, interprovincial trucking lines, lines of shipping and railways, indeed any form of transport coming under federal jurisdiction, ought to make a reasonable contribution to municipal revenues.
I do not believe such a declaration would be out of accord with what is generally recognized to be good policy nowadays. However, I have some hesitation about putting such a provision into the bill when, as I say, I do not believe it would have any real effect. Having said that, I leave the matter to Your Honour.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I ask the minister one question? Does he not agree this provision is entirely in the same category as that contained in paragraphs (a) and (c), which are simply declarations of honesty. For instance paragraph (c) reads:
(c) each mode of transport, so far as practicable, receives compensation for the resources, facilities and services that it is required to provide as an imposed public duty;
Is there not just a hope that this will be realized, in the same way as the hon. member's amendment expresses a hope that this will be realized?
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not think so. Later in the bill we have given the commission specific directions with respect to preservation of competition. For example, at the instance of the hon. member for Port Arthur we inserted in clause 20 a provision to enable the commission to look at mergers between one mode of transport and another in order to see whether they did not unduly restrict the ability to compete. In various ways we have made an effort to have carriers contribute a fair proportion of the cost of the federal resources that they use.
As far as (c) is concerned, we are very specifically making provision for payments. For example, if a branch line that is losing money must be retained in the public interest, then a payment is made to the railway for doing so. If a passenger service which we consider to be in the public interest is losing money but should be retained, then a contribution is made there. So that all of these provisions in the bill are given some legislative effect as well. However, I suggest that this amendment is something to which nc positive legislative effect could be given anywhere else in the bill, and in that respect it is quite different.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport has a perfect right to disagree with
January 25, 1987

the suggestion that this amendment should be inserted into clause 1. He also has a perfect right to disagree with the arguments that have been advanced in support of it. But I do not believe that he has any right to try to prevent members from moving amendments with which he disagrees on the basis that they are out of order.
What we are discussing at the moment is not whether the amendment is a good or a poor amendment or is a declaration of principle. What the minister did last night was to raise a point of order in an attempt to prevent the hon. member for Calgary South moving an amendment, and he did so on the ground that it was out of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. gentleman does not want to be unfair. All I did last night was to reserve my right to raise a point of order; and I have raised it in a pretty tentative fashion today.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that we are now discussing a point of order. We could develop arguments for or against the advisability of inserting this amendment into clause 1; but this, in my opinion, is not related to the point of order which is now before the committee as to whether or not the hon. member for Calgary South is competent under the rules to move this amendment at this time.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, if you are troubled by the argument advanced by the Minister of Transport that there is some constitutional impediment involved, that you should look at the other two clauses brought in by the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. If the minister's argument is correct he is also violating the rules of this house by putting in such provisions as:
(a) regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other modes of transport:-
The federal Minister of Transport can transfer no authority to this new Transport Commission with respect to highway transport within a province. Certainly that is one mode of transport that will be competing with other modes. Furthermore he has no constitutional authority, and neither has this house, to confer upon this new Transport Commission the right to interfere with interprovincial highway transportation, as far as bearing a fair proportion of the cost of federal resources is concerned.
Transportation
I could argue for some time on this point, Mr. Chairman, but all I want to say is that I do not think the minister should try to make the argument that there are constitutional impediments in the way of the hon. member for Calgary South in his attempt to move this kind of amendment, when the very argument that he is using would in fact have prevented him from bringing in provisions already contained in clause 1. I hope the minister will be fair and will withdraw all of his objections, so that the motion can be put, and then we in this committee will decide whether or not it is advisable to make this addition to clause 1.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unless the hon. member for Kamloops particularly wants to say something, I must say that I have been somewhat impressed by the arguments of the hon. member for Peace River; I confess I was less impressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I was also impressed by one of the arguments made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, though I do not think it would apply. I think it is inferred that only federal resources are involved, but I do see what he means. We could not say anything about how much an interprovincial trucking company should contribute toward roads in, say, the province of Alberta; that would be quite impossible of course.
The words can be construed in various ways, Mr. Chairman. I was pretty tentative when I started my argument, but I do not think I should impose upon Your Honour the need for making any decision in this matter. Quite frankly, from my argument about the point of order I think hon. members will have gathered that I do not very much like the amendment, but I am quite willing to leave it to the committee to decide whether to include it in the bill.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to express appreciation to the minister for the attitude he is taking, which should save the time of the committee. I think just to complete the record on Hansard this point should be made.
On the question whether the matter is intra vires or ultra vires, there can be no argument that this parliament has absolute jurisdiction over railways of the nature of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. If this parliament has jurisdiction, then it can legislate with respect to the rights and obligations of those railways in the conduct of their business in Canada. The minister might feel that it is improper for us to require them to pay municipal taxes if, as

January 25, 1967
Transportation
they argue, there is some contractual exemption. But that, as has been pointed out, is a matter of opinion, this requirement is not beyond our power.
By his attitude the minister has shown that he will not press very hard the point as to whether it is ultra vires. Whether or not anyone feels that this should be done, it is certainly within our power to do it. I thought that this point should be made, Mr. Chairman, because I would hate to be casting my vote for any amendment which I felt might be ultra vires.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister for an opinion; I gather that sometimes he does not mind giving one. Even if the amendment carries it is merely a declaration. To give effect to it, it would be necessary to bring in some consequential or ensuing amendment to other statute law. Is that not the case?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if the house saw fit to adopt the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Calgary South, then while not imposing a legal obligation it would impose, I think, a moral obligation on the government to do what it has announced it intends to do anyway, and that is to require the Canadian National Railways-it may, of course, do this itself through the treasury, which in the end might amount to the same thing as a result of the present state of the books of the railways-to contribute the equivalent taxes paid by the crown railways, which are now immune from taxation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think if parliament expressed this view and the government did not tell the Canadian National to do that, we should be acting in contempt of parliament, whether or not it would have any legal effect. I do not think any government therefore would be required to legislate to force trucking companies, pipe lines or other bodies to pay municipal taxes. We might decide to do that, but I think it would be better if this part said "pay the current rate of municipal taxation" rather than "a fair proportion of the costs". I do not know how you would determine a fair proportion without intruding into matters where we have no capacity to intrude into. That is about the best answer I can give, and perhaps I have gone further than it is wise to go.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Briefly I want to ask the minister a question. I am in favour of railways paying taxes to municipalities, or grants

in lieu of taxes, in the same way as the federal government reimburses municipalities for its presence in a municipality. From my brief municipal experience I have learned that the railways pay a limited form of municipal tax on buildings in a municipality, and possibly on their switching and yard arrangements. Out on the lines of communication, the track through the rural sections of the country, I do not think the railways pay taxes. I ask the minister to tell us on what the railways do pay taxes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will get that information for the hon. gentleman. I could not give it to him now.


Mr. Ballard:: I shall be brief, having in mind that I moved the amendment. I know the minister considers the clause we are discussing innocuous. That is why he is so even tempered this afternoon. He is not exercised about this clause being in the bill. In my opinion this amendment secures the objectives of clause 1. After all, clause 1 is the statement of objectives in the bill, to rationalize transportation in Canada. Clause 1 says that the railways should receive a fair return for services performed, and paragraph (b>
says that each mode of transport will pay for those service it receives. The amendment expands this a little. It says that the railways shall pay for services received at the municipal level.
Arguing that this is not fair is defeated by the minister's saying that he will issue instructions to the Canadian National, the government-owned railway, that it shall pay full municipal taxes with passage of this bill. All we are asking, by including this objective in clause 1, is that the Canadian Pacific shall act as a good corporate citizen and follow the lead, laid down by the Minister of Transport, of the Canadian National.
I can say, speaking as a western Canadian member, that the Canadian Pacific has received for 85 years a bonus or subsidy from municipalities of western Canada. At the present time this subsidy runs between $2.5 to $3 million a year, and it is time it ended. It is all right for the federal government to give a subsidy-it intends to do that-but as the municipalities of western Canada have paid to the Canadian Pacific a subsidy for the last 85 years, it is high time that subsidy were ended.
One can argue that we shall change the agreement made with the Canadian Pacific in 1881, which said that the Canadian Pacific
January 25, 1967

1224S
shall not be subject to municipal taxes. But the minister already unilaterally has abrogated the provisions of that agreement-perhaps I should say, he proposes unilaterally to abrogate the provisions of the 1881 agreement. That is the effect of the other amendment being considered by the committee. The minister's words in connection with this amendment were that "no consequences can flow from these words". If the words in this amendment are innocuous, why can they not pass? Why can the amendment not pass? In the minister's words the amendment has no effect on the bill. We could pass it, I suggest, without doing any damage to the bill and without changing the status quo.
One provision and stated intention of the bill, in the minister's words again, is to put the railways on a basis to charge compensatory rates. If this bill passes, the expenses of the Canadian National by way of taxes will be greater than those of the Canadian Pacific, because the Canadian Pacific is exempt. This means we automatically give the Canadian Pacific an unearned profit or subsidy, and no comparable subsidy is paid to the Canadian National.
Taking all this into consideration, I think the committee ought to adopt this amendment without a twinge of conscience.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Listening to the minister's words a few minutes ago I understood him to say-and I do not want to misquote him

that this amendment was innocuous, that there would be no difficulty if it were written into the bill, and so far as he was concerned we might as well get on with it.
Does the minister intend to accept the amendment? Or was he, in his roundabout way, saying, "Let us have a vote, because we have sufficient Liberals in the committee now, as we did not have last week, to settle the matter". The minister talks this way, pretending that everything is all right, that he has no objection, and that we had better deal with it. 1 think he means that he wants to vote the amendment down. Why does he not say so? Why does he not say he is unalterably opposed to the amendment? He keeps talking until the poor Whip can assemble the Liberal sheep, that they may vote as the dictator states. Instead of admitting that, he told the committee, and I heard him say this, that it is innocuous, and that we might as well get on with the business. All he meant, in the double meaning so frequently found in his remarks, was that he would not pass it, and he was waiting for his members to come in.
Transportation
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I think we should take a good look at this. If the minister thinks it is innocuous and might be accepted, why cannot he say so? He does not mind repeating himself; he has been doing it now for two weeks. I want to know whether he has answered the question which the hon. member for Calgary South asked last night. Consider that phrase in a letter quoted from the president of the C.P.R.

this is on page 12209 of Hansard. The president is talking about the taxes the company is prepared to pay-
-one third for the year commencing January 1 after legislation is enacted modernizing and rationalizing existing legislation and taking into account, among other things, the effective changed conditions of freight rates otherwise fixed.
A very interesting sentence indeed, and one which is carefully worded so that if the legislation did not pass the house in 1966, payment of taxes would be deferred until 1968.
In the fall of last year it was obvious to everybody in the country that the railway bill would not be through the house before Christmas, although the Minister of Transport talked to us and said: Look, the committee has settled all this; why cannot we pass it in about two days and then the C.P.R. will be obliged to start paying municipal taxes This was the carrot held out to the house. I recall the minister saying this to us, though he knew, and we knew, that it was impossible to get the bill through before Christmas. No doubt this was because the minister had been superseded in the hierarchy of the cabinet by the minister of health and welfare-


An hon. Member:: And by the minister of defence.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -particularly by the minister of health and welfare, who had to get his bill through the house. The Minister of Transport is downgraded and pushed to one side. I am not so sure, now, that it was not all arranged. I do not like to be suspicious and cast innuendos, but was this all arranged so that there would be a postponement of the transport bill to the end that the C.P.R. would not have to pay taxes until 1968?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman-


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the minister will sit down, I will do the talking. Nothing will prevent his getting up to speak as soon as I have sat down, and the committee will suffer accordingly. I know that, because he has been on his feet every hour on the hour; he has had

January 25, 1967
Transportation
something to say about every amendment, every section which has been presented to the committee. He is the man who knows all about transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He does not need any advisers. Oh, no, this is the big play. He is regaining the position he lost before Christmas to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He has a claque behind him, now. This is a man with leadership ambitions. Everybody is here to support him. Look at his strength in the cabinet now. The minister of defence will be worried. He is slipping.
Now let us look closely at this question. The hon. member for Calgary South said, and I quote his words
In no place in his letter does he say what he means by "modernizing and rationalizing existing legislation". If some portion of this legislation should not convey the meaning which the president of the C.P.R. had in mind when he made this offer, I wonder whether his offer would be withdrawn. He mentions also "the effective changed conditions on freight rates otherwise fixed".
When he mentions fixed freight rates does he include the Crowsnest pass rates, for example?
I ask the minister to give an effective answer to the hon. member for Calgary South with regard to that most pertinent question. There is a condition in that letter. We sometimes wonder who is pushing the minister around. Is there somebody behind the scenes directing him as to his conduct of this bill through the house? What is the answer to that?
Why will not the C.P.R. change its letter and say "in view of the unexpected delay last fall our letter will be modified accordingly, and the date will read January 1, 1967 instead of January 1 after the legislation has been enacted."? That was the intent of the letter of August 29, 1966. Why should not that intent be carried through? Why cannot the minister tell us that the letter will be altered and he had another letter from the C.P.R. which he is prepared to table, or read out, showing a new date of January 1, 1967?
That reference to changed conditions of freight rates otherwise fixed-is this the reason for pursuing an investigation into the Crowsnest pass rates? The word is going across western Canada that the Minister of Transport and the Liberal party are dead set on eroding those rates. By a subterfuge they will permit the railways to make an application to the commission to have these rates

reviewed. The railways will bring in their costing conclusions and a subsidy will be granted by the government. Then, in the course of time, an argument will be built up that we cannot continue to subsidize the shipment of grain to our ports and that the rates will therefore have to be looked at very carefully and, perhaps, modified.
This is the word which is going around in western Canada. The people are beginning to awaken to the fact that there is more behind this bill than meets the eye. Although the government is saying that the rates will not be touched and that a subsidy will be provided if the railways succeed in proving their point, nevertheless the revenues will be examined, mileage figures will be given, the volume of grain shipped here and there, and the high cost of transportation to the railways mentioned, in an attempt to prove that the Crowsnest rates are uneconomic and that therefore the railways should be given a subsidy. Then within five or ten years the argument will be advanced that the subsidy should not be continued and that the rates should be altered. The people of western Canada are beginning to see through the activities of the Minister of Transport.
The minister has held himself silent for much longer that I ever anticipated he could, and I would ask him at this point to explain the phrase in the letter of the president of the C.P.R. and answer the questions raised by the hon. member for Calgary South. And if he repeats what he has already said, well we are accustomed to repetition from the minister.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The minister has asked me to announce on his behalf that he is unable to support the amendment. I wish to say personally that I agree with him. I should like to say, also, that I feel the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is not giving much credit to those of his party who sat in the committee for something like 40 sittings and heard 40 witnesses, if he believes they failed to discover something in this bill which he now seems to find so objectionable.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggested some time ago, and read from Hansard, that the minister did make an agreement with the railways, and whether or not the question of municipal taxes is written into the bill, as referred to in the letter between the minister and the president of the C.P.R., the minister did say as recorded at page 11601 of Hansard for
January 25, 1967

January 10 that he did make an agreement with the railroads. If the minister is shaking his head then I had better read from Hansard:
The company did say that if they were allowed the kind of scope the government had said they were going to propose to parliament to enable the company to increase railway revenues, then the company would be glad to give up this immunity.
The minister was referring to this immunity from municipal taxes, and in that quotation which I have given, was pointing out that an agreement was made. There is no question of doubt in my mind but that the minister directed the president of the C.P.R. to put in "January 1, 1967" in his letter so that he, the minister, could have a club to hold over the heads of parliamentarians.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There is no question in my mind about that. I don't know what the minister is standing up for.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member has accused me of mis


Michael Starr: On a point of order-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have risen on a question of privilege.


Michael Starr: Then I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know how the minister-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to hear more than one member at the same time. The Minister of Transport, on a question of privilege.


Michael Starr: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman


Herman Maxwell Batten: The Minister of Transport is already on a question of privilege.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege because the hon. gentleman was questioning my word. I gave my word to the house, not once but on several occasions, that I had no agreement whatsoever with the Canadian Pacific Railway about this bill, and the words that the hon. gentleman has just quoted


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will read them again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Read them again when I have finished. The words the hon. gentleman
Transportation
has just read are a paraphrase of the letter written by the president of the C.P.R. The letter was not written by me; it was written by the president of the C.P.R. It was a public document, and surely I am as much entitled to refer to that document as any other member of the house, without being accused of deceiving or misleading the house. The C.P.R. did this of their own volition. I welcomed it, and I hope that if this legislation is passed within a reasonable time-and I said this before-they will start paying those taxes this year.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the question of privilege?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no agreement of any kind.


Malcolm MacInnis: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely, sir, I am entitled to defend my veracity, and when I say to hon. members that there was no agreement of any kind I am sure the hon. gentleman who has been speaking believes me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, this is a very interesting discussion-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order please. I consider the acts of the committee now to be an interruption of the present speaker, the hon. member for Acadia.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Chairman, I have never been so flattered that so many members over there, so many trained seals, would think me so devastating that they would drown me out by pounding on their desks. I never thought my words would strike so deadly at their hearts that they would be afra d even to allow me the privilege of speaking. You, Mr. Chairman, and the minister can interpret this particular paragraph any way you like, and we on this side will interpret it in the way it reads best to us. I am going to read it out again.
I am not quoting from the letter written by the president of the C.P.R. which was tabled on September 8. I am quoting from a speech which the minister made in the house on January 10, when he 'was dealing with the question of municipal taxes. Since the minister said I was paraphrasing I shall start the

January 25, 1967
Transportation
quotation a little earlier. As recorded at page 11601 of Hansard the minister said:
The difference between myself and the present government and everyone else is that we did discuss this problem with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
That is very clear. The minister did discuss this problem with the C.P.R. There were two parties involved and they were discussing municipal taxes, which is the subject of the amendment.
We did make representations to them that this kind of immunity, which had been given in perpetuity, was not really the kind of thing that was very desirable in the twentieth century.
So the minister hopes that in the twentieth century the C.P.R. would not try to maintain its exemption in perpetuity from paying municipal taxes. That is the proposition he was making to the C.P.R. Then he went on to say:
The company did say that if they were allowed the kind of scope the government had said they were going to propose to parliament to enable the company to increase railway revenues, then the company would be glad to give up this immunity.
This is the agreement to which I was referring. The minister made a proposition to the railways, offering them the right to raise rates any way they liked, and if the railways accepted that they would give up their exemption from municipal taxes. This is why the amendment is so important. In this bill we are giving the railways one part of the bargain, and in an earlier speech I suggested another part of the bargain was a thorough investigation of the Crowsnest pass rates.
That part of the bargain was voted out last Wednesday. Proudly we westerners stood together because we realized that that provision in the bill was the thin edge of the wedge with regard to those rates which have been the Magna Carta of western Canada.
That must have been part of the bargain because since then the minister has desperately tried to have the provision re-entered in the bill. We in western Canada know how far the government is prepared to go in driving the thin edge of the wedge into the Crowsnest pass rates. It is going to push the wedge right in to the hilt.
After an examination of Hansard and the number of times that the minister presented this question to the committee, I have no doubt with respect to the letter written to the minister by the president of the C.P.R., and which he tabled on September 8, that the minister directed the president of the C.P.R.
[Mr. Horner (Acadia).1
to include the words "January 1, 1967" in that letter. The minister wanted those words in that letter so that he would have a club over the parliamentary committee, and over this house. But he failed to use that club on his cabinet ministers.
Members of the cabinet are all great at using clubs. The Minister of National Health and Welfare used a resignation club on the Prime Minister, stating he would resign unless his medicare bill was proceeded with, even though it would not become effective until July 1, 1968, a year and a half after the legislation was passed. But the Minister of Transport was too good a Liberal to resort to using such a heavy club on his leader, and so he lost in the argument.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
There is no doubt in my mind that there was an agreement and that the minister did agree with the president of the C.P.R. that he should include the date January 1, 1967 in that letter. This does bring up the subject of municipal taxes on C.P.R. land, because this bill is giving the railways permission to set whatever rates they like. There is no question in my mind but that this amendment is in order. The minister well may have to vote against it because of an agreement he made with the railways. He may be bound to do so because of the shady dealings which have gone on. I use the word "shady", because those of us who are westerners know what it means. We have been dealt with, in shady deals, by Liberal governments for years. We now knew the meaning of it and we see another one being perpetrated across Canada this very day.
Amendment (Mr. Ballard) negatived on division: Yeas 77; nays 87.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to offer a postscript to my encounter with the Minister of Transport yesterday. Also I should like to make another suggestion before leaving this particular debate. Yesterday I was making the point that Bill C-231 really offered no protection to the ports of this country. In my enthusiasm, and despite a good deal of elbow grease, I failed to note that section 14(2) of the Canadian National-Cansdian Pacific Act, chapter 39, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, was still in effect. I thought that this current legislation we are dealing with had done away with it. However, it is still there, as the minister pointed out and as the railway lawyers pointed out to me
January 25, 1967

later in the corridor. We shared a few jocular remarks about this. This shows the danger of treading in a swamp full of railway legislation involving dozens of acts which must be dealt with.
My argument really is not altered by the fact that the section exists which I assumed was not going to exist. The section provides that the national system-the C.N.R.-among other things will procure or direct shipments of goods through Canadian seaports if the shipper does not specify otherwise. I recall the word "procure", because I think the meaning of this would be that if there were any interchange between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway, the Canadian National Railways by virtue of this section would have to request the Canadian Pacific Railway to use a Canadian seaport. I do not know whether or not this is done in practice or whether it is impractical. Nevertheless there seems to be a direction to use seaports. It would be very easy for the railway when quoting rates to the shipper to say that by using such and such a port-Portland, Baltimore or the like-that the rate will be one thing and that by using Halifax, Saint John, Quebec or Montreal the rate will be another.
Beyond the matter of choice, there is no requirement for the development of Canadian ports. I think this is an important point and one which should be considered, because the railway will quote the route by which it can carry goods for the maximum return with the least amount of effort. Under the best possible practice I think the railways would be bound to direct its customers to the routes best suited to their purses. I wish I had known that section 14(2) carried on the law, because it would not have hurt my argument one single bit. I would have argued even more strenuously that whatever protection we have under the law is very small protection indeed.
I should like to emphasize this point to the minister. I give him full marks for his knowledge concerning section 14(2) or for the homework on the part of the people in the gallery. This is all part of the good clean fun of debate and it serves me right. I do not wish, however, to leave the point that the study which is now before the minister dealing with maritime transportation needs should deal with the point of development of the ports. If it does not, then those who carried out the study should be sent back to the grindstone, with their noses up against it.
Transportation
I believe the minister agrees with me. From his nod and smile I gather that they have dealt with this point. This is vital and perhaps even it could be added to the Prime Minister's interminable and endless bottomed sack of wonders that he unveiled for us earlier this afternoon, because this is a matter of life or death to the ports of Saint John and Halifax, and is very vital to the whole maritime economy.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
It is specifically set forth in clause 1 that the public interest would have to be considered. The minister has made two alterations by amendment in this regard since this matter came back to the house, in a specific attempt to meet the needs of the maritimes. I think he should be thanked in that regard, because he was dealing with shipments through or maximum use of Canadian seaports.
Perhaps at hearings in respect of public interest these changes to Bill No. C-231 will be considered by the board. I hope the board will take a look at the over-all legislation and find that these matters have not been mentioned in previous enactments, and then come to the conclusion that this does relate to public interest.
I am a little concerned, and I know the minister will be sympathetic in this regard, that at these hearings the commission will give consideration to what took place before the passage of Bill No. C-231, and come to the conclusion that public interest is not really affected because shippers are following traditional methods of moving goods out of this country and into other countries. Perhaps I am wrong in that regard. It may be that the board after reading clause 1 of Bill No. C-231 will be generous in its interpretation of what is in the public interest of Canada in order that more use can be made of all our seaports.
Since this is a short day and the minister and his staff have reached the final stages or are on the last lap of this bill, which I presume will wind up tomorrow-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister has reached the final stages of what?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Of this particular bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps "collapse" would be more appropriate.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I know the hon. member for Acadia plans to go west over the week end, so at least our consideration should not go beyond Friday.

January 25, 1967
Transportation


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member suggesting that we skip tomorrow and come back to it on Friday?


Robert Jardine McCleave: That might save the minister some anguish, but I am not suggesting anything. These little asides have caused me to lose the thread of my discourse.
In any event, dealing with the point of public interest, since the minister will have the night off it might be worth while for him to discuss with his legal advisers whether or not they feel almost absolutely certain that the changes the minister has put in dealing with the use of our ports are strong enough to assure that the commission will be seized of this aspect of public interest.
Let me refer briefly to one other point. It is hoped that in the aeronautics field Canadian Pacific Airlines will be encouraged by the government, if necessary, or perhaps persuaded by what will appear in Hansard, to give consideration to the extension of its services to make them national. I do not anticipate that they will initially enter Atlantic Canada on the same widespread scale as Air Canada, but I do not find fault with Air Canada for suggesting that C.P.A. should at least service some of our major cities. There is always an element of comfort in competition. Competition between two air lines should help to improve services so long as economic considerations are taken into account. I am sure the board will take this fact into account before licences are awarded.
This is tax finding time in our Canadian municipalities. Twice in the last couple of days I have tried to find out whether the Canadian National Railways will be required to pay full municipal taxes for the full year 1967. So far I have not received an answer. The city of Halifax through its council has presented a similar request to the Prime Minister for information. That is why I directed by question originally to the Prime Minister, rather than the Minister of Transport.
Every city in Canada is in exactly the same position. This month they are going over their budgets and setting their tax rates. It would be helpful to them to have some information in respect of this very important matter.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Chairman, I will be extremely brief in my remarks to the minister. I should like to refer to clause 93, which is the
fMr. McCleave.]
miscellaneous clause. That clause has reference to the Aeronautics Act in respect of "hire or reward", and states that this means:
-any payment, consideration, gratuity or benefit, directly or indirectly charged, demanded, received or collected by any person for the use of an aircraft;-
I feel the position of a private individual or firm may be in jeopardy as a result of this clause. Perhaps the minister will give a detailed explanation as to what this means.
As the clause now stands no person, group of persons, company or group of companies can get together and rent an aircraft or use an aircraft of an operating company by sharing the cost. Perhaps individuals in Toronto want to attend a joint meeting in Montreal and find they cannot group together and hire an aircraft for that purpose. I hope the minister is prepared to clarify this situation because I think it is unfair to private owners of aircraft.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can give an answer at this time, and I appreciate the hon. gentleman giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. The appropriate clause has been passed, but we are allowing wide latitude in respect of clause 1.
The Air Transport Board has informed me that quite a number of cases were cropping up in which individuals or companies were in effect providing a commercial air service without complying with the licensing requirements of the act, and without therefore having any operating certificate from the department covering safety requirements. It could happen that one company owned an aircraft and employed a crew, and would then lease the aircraft without crew to someone else. By separate arrangement that other person would put that crew on his payroll for as long as the aircraft was rented. At the end of that period the crew would go back on the owner's payroll.
What really was happening was that a commercial service was being provided in this indirect way without the law, which other people had to comply with, being complied with by the individual renting the aircraft. What is perhaps more important is that the regulations in respect of safety were not being enforced.
This clause will not prohibit this practice but it will require these people to follow the ordinary rules in respect of safety, as well as those rules in respect of licensing.
January 25, 1967


Eric Alfred Winkler: I will accept that explanation. Perhaps I may call it six o'clock, but before doing so I should like to pose another question so the minister can give it consideration. Obviously we are not going to finish our consideration of this bill tonight. Would it not be more democratic or beneficial if the individuals involved in this practice of "dry leasing", as it is called, were subject to the law that other companies or individuals owning aircraft are subject to?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is exactly what is intended, and nothing else. The hon. gentleman has said this a lot better than I did and in fewer words.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government house leader to indicate what the government proposes for consideration on Thursday and Friday.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


George James McIlraith: We will continue the consideration of the bill which occupied the attention of the house today. At the conclusion of that discussion we will consider two motions on the order paper, the one to set up a joint committee to deal with the rules and the other creating a special joint committee to deal with the national anthem. The next item will be the bill on the integration of the armed forces. The last three items will not necessarily be taken in the order indicated.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in order to expedite the business of the house and the work of the committees we on this side of the house are prepared to pass without debate items 124 and 125, the two resolutions setting up the two committees.


George James McIlraith: I certainly wish to take advantage of this offer if it is agreeable and would ask that Your Honour call item No. 124.



NATIONAL ANTHEM


George James McIlraith: That a special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the subject matter of the following proposed resolution: "That 23033-776
Business of the House
the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that 'O Canada' shall be the National Anthem of Canada while 'God Save the Queen' shall be the Royal Anthem
in Canada";
That 12 members of the House of Commons, to be designated at a later date, be members of the joint committee; and
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting that house to unite with this house for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it advisable, some of its members to act on the proposed joint committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minisler of Public
Works) moved:
That a special committee of 11 members, to be designated at a later date, be appointed to consider and from time to time to report upon the advisability of making permanent, with or without amendment, any or all the several changes in the procedure of this house adopted for the first session of the Twenty Seventh Parliament on January 21, 1966, and such other changes as the committee may deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the house.
Motion agreed to.

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their co-operation. Perhaps I should indicate some other bills for consideration tomorrow in the event that we complete the consideration of the previously mentioned items. There is item No. 114, a bill respecting the armed forces of countries visiting Canada. The next one is item No. 84, a bill to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act. Then there is item No. 62, second reading of the bill on the establishment of a Canadian Films Development Corporation, and lastly item No. 83, the bill providing for immigration appeals. I will consult with the house leaders as to the order in which these items will be called.


Michael Starr: May I ask a question at this particular time? Can the government house leader tell us whether the Chairman's ruling will be circulated and when it will be in the hands of the members?


George James McIlraith: I am afraid I have no idea about that. I regarded this as a matter for the Chair and I did not ask about that point.

January 25, 1967
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will appear in Hansard tomorrow.


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes, but we like to work on Wednesday night.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, may I have the consent of the house to revert to motions for the purposes of tabling a committee report?


Michael Starr: Six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: There does not seem to be unanimous consent to revert to motions.


[Stage Direction]
It being eight minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
122S7
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, January 26, 1967