1967-05-25

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce that I intend to present the budget a week from today, June 1, at 8 p.m.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with article 19 of the constitution of the International Labour Organization, and with the permission of the house, I would like to table the text in English and French of instruments adopted at the 50th International Labour Conference held in Geneva in June, 1966. Four instruments were adopted at that conference-two conventions and two recommendations.
The I.L.O. constitution requires the government of a member state to bring conventions and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference "before the authority or authorities within whose competence the matter lies for the enactment of legislation or other action." In the case of a federal state, the constitution further obliges the federal government to refer instruments which are deemed to be wholly or partially within provincial legislative competence to the appropriate provincial authorities "for the enactment of legislation or other action."
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
The opinion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), a copy of which I should like also to table with the consent of the house, is that the subject matter of each convention is within federal legislative jurisdiction, and that the subject matter of each of the recommendations is partially within federal legislative jurisdiction and partially within provincial legislative jurisdiction.
Convention 125 sets up minimum international standards for certificates of competency for officers on salt water fishing vessels. In Canada the standards in this convention have been studied by the departments concerned. The requirements for engineers I am pleased to say are being met in Canada.
Convention 126 deals with accommodation of crews on salt water fishing vessels. Here we have associated problems to discuss with the provinces concerned. This convention has been studied by the departments concerned in order to ascertain the extent to which it agrees with Canadian standards for such accommodation. I am pleased to say there has been substantial conformity in practice, but there are still a few problems to be overcome before ratification can be considered.
Recommendation 126 outlines vocational training programs for fishermen. Recommendation 127 concerns the role of co-operatives in developing countries. As hon. members no doubt are aware, the I.L.O. constitution obliges governments of federal states to arrange for periodic consultations between federal and provincial authorities with a view to promoting action to give effect to the provisions of international instruments adopted by the International Labour Conference. In addition to our regular consultations my department is continuing to consult with other federa authorities in respect of provincial areas of the I.L.O. conventions.
I should like to add that I was privileged to take part in a ceremony last fall at which my colleague the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) formally presented the instruments of ratification of two I.L.O. conventions on behalf of the government of Canada: Convention 45 concerning the employment of women on underground work in mines, and convention 122 concerning employment policy. I might say that that occasion was made more pleasurable by the fact that the eighth regional conference of American states members of the I.L.O. was meeting in Ottawa at that time.
With the permission of the house I should like to file the conventions and regulations.


Righi Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter
May 25, 1967

International Labour Organization of the minister's remarks once more underlines the great difficulties, under the federal system, of the federal government entering into treaties and conventions which in any way are concerned with matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the provinces.
In 1919, if my recollection is correct, a series of conventions was passed by the I.L.O. During the days of the administration of the late Right Hon. R. B. Bennett various social legislation bills were introduced in parliament, the foundation of which was the agreements entered into by the I.L.O. in 1919. The courts held that the legislative enactments were not within the ambit of the powers of parliament and gave the opinion accordingly.
In the last few years there has been more discussion of the constitution than ever before, particularly arising out of the doctrine of two nations enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in April, 1963. That has brought about within the nation divisions of opinion concerning treaties and the rights of the provinces. The minister with his wide knowledge of the law, which is apparent in the statement he has just placed before the house, has underlined and emphasized the seriousness of the situation facing this nation in the field of international affairs in respect of those matters which may or may not fall within provincial jurisdiction.
Once more in centennial year I suggest that what he has said is further evidence of the need for this nation to convene a national constitutional conference to the end that we will determine once and for all the rights of this nation as a nation to enter into treaties, and also at the same time to assure that the infringement of impingement of treaty rights by particular provinces shall not be compromised.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should simply like to say on behalf of the N.D.P. that we welcome the fact that the minister has been able to place before parliament today the fruits of some of the work of the 1966 I.L.O. convention. I was particularly interested, having had an opportunity of hearing some of the discussions on the matters that led up to the convention in respect of the fisheries aspect of the matter. It is my hope that the minister, and his colleague the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robi-chaud) will pursue with all diligence their efforts to obtain necessary arrangements with the provinces in order that we may ratify this convention without undue delay.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened carefully to the statement of the minister on various aspects of the policy concerning work and accommodation on fishing boats. We are glad not only to hear this announcement, but also to realize that some progress is made in the field of labour in terms of international organization. The experiments made and the results obtained in other countries will help us considerably, and I think that what is being done in Canada now might be useful to other countries, as far as international relations are concerned.
We will study more carefully the statement the minister has just made and we will be in a better position then to express our point of view on the situation.



MOTION TO REFER DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATES TO STANDING COMMITTEES

Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public monies, the items listed in the main estimates for 1967-68, relating to the Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development, Trade and Commerce, National Revenue, External Affairs, Industry, Justice and Public Works be withdrawn from the Committee of Supply and referred to the Standing Committees of this House, as follows:
(a)	Agriculture, and Forestry and Rural Development to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development;
(b)	Trade and Commerce, and National Revenue to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs;
(c)	External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs;
(d)	Industry to the standing committee on industry, research and energy development;
(e)	Justice to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs; and
(f)	Public Works to the standing committee on housing, urban affairs and public works.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Mr. Herridge:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that-

-by virtue of standing order 57, this motion is not debatable.
May 25, 1967


Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it, and the motion is carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)



EXPO '67 VISIT OF PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES -DISCUSSIONS AT HARRINGTON LAKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask whether he would advise the President of the United States of the regret of this house at the fact that, in line with the course followed by his predecessor, he has not been enabled on this occasion to speak to this house and the other place, particularly at a time when such important matters as Viet Nam and the Middle East are exercising the hearts of free men everywhere.


Hon. Robert Winters (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, commenting on the observation made by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition about the visit to Canada of the President of the United States, I should say that we hope this short visit will not be the official visit of the President in connection with Canada's centennial year or to Expo. We hope he will have the opportunity to return.
As hon. members are aware, the President of the United States is visiting Canada today. He arrived at Expo, where he was received with the warm welcome that is characteristic of Canada, I think, and indicative of the great respect that Canadians have for our great neighbour to the south, and the office of the presidency.
Seme hon. Members: Hear, hear.


Robert Henry Winters: This visit was arranged at short notice yesterday, when the president
27053-36J
Inquiries of the Ministry suggested to our Prime Minister that it would be desirable in the present circumstances to consult together on a number of current developments in world affairs. During the course of this morning the president attended the United States national day ceremonies at Expo '67 and toured the United States pavilion. He then flew to the Prime Minister's summer residence at Harrington Lake, where he has lunched with the Prime Minister and where private discussions are now proceeding. These discussions, in which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is participating, will continue until the president returns to Washington later this afternoon.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has any report to offer regarding the situation in the Middle East, and in particular whether there is justification for the hope that is being expressed, that in that area the situation is improving and there is a hope that at least an interim settlement and a cooling off period will have been obtained, to the end that an ultimate and complete settlement may be secured.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, on the important subject of world peace as it relates to the delicate situation in the Middle East, there is very little I can add to the knowledge that all hon. members have in their possession. The Secretary General of the United Nations has returned and undoubtedly he will be reporting, but I can assure hon. members that the reports that the Secretary General was very upset about the meeting of the Security Council are ill founded. He was quite in accord with that action.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether there has been any acceptance by all of the four great powers of the invitation extended or the suggestion made by President de Gaulle that the great powers should meet together with a view to looking into this matter and thereby reducing tensions? Has there been any acceptance by the U.S.S.R. of the invitation?


Robert Henry Winters: I am unable to answer that question specifically at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to take it as notice.

May 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker,
may I ask a supplementary question? Could the Acting Prime Minister inform the house whether plans have been laid for a meeting of the Security Council in order that the Secretary General may report on his mission to Cairo, or has this not yet been done?


Robert Henry Winters: All I can report is my expectation, as is reported to me, that the Security Council will meet again in the near future to consider the Secretary General's report. So I presume that arrangements are in hand to that end.



SHOES-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT RESPECTING QUOTA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
Does the minister intend to establish quotas for the importation of shoes from Asiatic and European countries, as the Canadian Shoe Manufacturers Association has asked?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I will direct my question to the associate minister. It is based on the policy statement enunciated by the Minister of National Defence on April 3. The question is: Is the Canadian unified mobile force now available for-and I use the minister's own words-"putting out, containing or controlling incidents which might escalate into something more serious", and is the crisis in the Middle East the type of incident for which the force has been prepared?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of question that requires long consideration.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture who has now had some time to digest the representations of the farmers of Ontario and Quebec. Is he prepared to inform the standing committee on agriculture of his intention, that is whether or not he is ready to comply with the farmers' requests?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the meal I had yesterday will take more than 24 hours to digest.



BUTTER AND CHEESE-ALLEGED FAILURE OF DAIRY POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a supplementary question for the minister. Is he aware that the production of butter and cheese has dropped by 11 per cent? Will he say that this constitutes a failure of his recent dairy policy, and what does he intend to do to rectify it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question also appears to be difficult to digest.



POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF SCHOOL MILK PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture concerning a matter which he has been digesting for a considerable period of time. Will the minister now, in the light of the events which took place on the hill yesterday afternoon, consider implementing the school milk program which was promised back in 1963?


Mr. Howard:: And in 1958.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would put the question on the order paper.



DAIRY POLICY-SUFPORT OF CANADIAN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Like the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Cote), is the minister still convinced of the support of Canadian farmers? If so, can he tell us why six officers accompanied him when he left parliament at 6.45 p.m. yesterday?

May 25, 1967



REPORT OF FINDINGS BY TASK FORCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and is based on the fact that he has accepted the principle of setting up a task force to look into agricultural problems in eastern Canada. Is the government seriously considering asking the task force to report its findings to the government before a specific date, and if so can the minister inform the house approximately how much time he intends to let the task force have to complete their work?


John James Greene: Although no rigid terms were set prior to the appointment of the task force, the general thinking is that they should report within one year, and make interim reports on specific studies within that period.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the task force be comprised of officials, or will the agricultural industry be represented?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it will not be composed of officials. The thought is that outside persons will compose the task force.



ACTION BY VETERINARIANS TO RELIEVE SUFFERING OF ANIMALS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister assure this house that all veterinarians in the employ of the government will carry out their ethical and moral responsibility to attempt to relieve the suffering of animals, as requested by the Humane Society?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a very general question which might be placed on the order paper.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the society have requested this for some time and as yet have not had an answer. I think that the minister should have given an answer.



DAIRY POLICY-POSSIBLE RECOMMENDATIONS FOLLOWING COMMITTEE STUDY On the orders of the day:


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, following the answer given by the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Finance to a question I put to him earlier, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Would the Minister of Agriculture tell the house whether he intends to recommend to the committee which will study the farmers' requests between now and June 10 a suggestion to review the policy of quotas applicable to the dairy policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the matters that we shall consider before June 10.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Industry. I asked one along the same lines on Tuesday and Your Honour found it inadmissible. May I rephrase it and hope it is in order. Can the minister inform the house whether it is his intention to classify northern Ontario as a designated area, and if so when may we expect the relevant information?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no objection to the minister answering the question. The reason I ruled the question out of order at the time it was asked originally by the hon. member is that it appeared to me to be of a very general nature and of a type that should not normally be asked at this time.


David Lewis: There was a part to that question which I left out in the hope that it would not be considered too general.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me to repeat the question that I asked the Minister of Industry, in view of Your Honour's suggestion that you would have no objection to his replying to it. 1 asked the minister whether he could tell the house if it is his intention to classify northern Ontario as a designated area and, if so, when he would be likely to make that announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that there should be some order, I would suggest to the hon. member that if he thinks I am wrong in ruling against the immediate urgency of the matter or against accepting the question at this time it could easily be asked at ten o'clock this evening.

May 25. 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



CLOSING OF BUILDINGS DURING ASSEMBLY OF FARM DELEGATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker I would direct a question to the Minister of Justice and ask him whether it was under his direction, or under the direction of any member of the government, that the parliament buildings were yesterday closed and sealed even before there was any suggestion of mob action or threats. Why was that done, who gave the order, and was it carried out in pursuance of any instructions given by any member of the executive?
Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the first part of the question I can say that I did not give such an order. With regard to the question whether such an order was given, I would have to make inquiries.


Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Would the minister express our congratulations to the R.C.M.P. for the good spirit they showed yesterday in handling the situation? Because they were wonderful.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had occasion during the question period to raise the matter of the locked doors of the House of Commons. At this time I should like to put forward the suggestion, which may be considered in any report Your Honour might be preparing on this subject, that this locking of the doors affects two major principles. One is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member asking a question or making a statement on a question of privilege?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is one of those which falls into both categories, being a question and a matter of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Then perhaps it might be easier if the hon. member would rise on a question of privilege.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Then I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I raised yesterday a question which I thought was very close to a question of privilege. After mature consideration I know it is a question of privilege, because I think it is a paramount right of a member of parliament to have access to his

place in this house when the division bells ring. Not that this situation will occur too many times in the future, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that in your report to us there should be some indication how this situation can be met when large delegations come here in future.
The second aspect of my question of privilege concerns the right of the citizens of this country to make their presentations on the hill in an orderly manner and to have access to the House of Commons. I do not think any person in this house excuses the action of those few who pounded on the doors, but I wanted to ask Your Honour whether in your report you would consider suggesting a procedure for the future which recognizes (a) that a member has a right to his place and that this should be looked after, and (b) that those who wish to come here in an orderly fashion should be given the privilege of coming in, as they did later on in the afternoon.



OPPORTUNITY TO VISITORS TO PURCHASE INFORMATIONAL MATERIAL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Secretary of State as minister most concerned about making our centennial visitors happy. We all know that there are thousands of people going through this house every day, and I have received several complaints.
Would the minister bring to the attention of the appropriate authorities the fact that hundreds of people who are visiting this house every day would like an opportunity to buy booklets and pictures relating to this house while they are here?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take note of that.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. Is the government making progress in drafting legislation to implement the recommendation of the special joint committee on the public service of Canada with regard to increasing the pensions of retired civil servants? If so, when may we expect the presentation of that legislation?
May 25, 1967


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the government is making progress in its consideration of the matter, but I know better than to fix dates for implementing any decisions that are made when dealing with my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I trust it will be soon.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. I understand that just prior to my entering the house the minister announced that the budget would be presented a week from tonight. Is it the intention of the minister, the house leader or the government to continue with the budget until debate has concluded, or will it be adjourned that evening for a certain period?


Lawrence T. Pennell: may be permitted to answer, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question will be resolved when the government house leader returns to the house early next week, and consultations with the several house leaders will be held.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Fisheries a question. Can he say whether he has received protests from British Columbia organizations over the reported decision by the British Columbia government to permit a renewal of the Stellako river log drive, which was so injurious to the fishing resource last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I find it difficult to judge whether that question is of immediate urgency. If the hon. member thinks I am wrong in my judgment that it is not, he might want to give notice to debate the matter at ten o'clock.


Barry Mather: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is of urgency because the fishing season in that area is about to get under way. I think the minister has a reply to my question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, I did receive protests from a number of organizations in British Columbia about the decision of the government of British Columbia to permit a renewal of the Stellako log drive. In this regard I wrote to the minister of lands, forests and water resources for British Columbia on May 16, and I received a reply to my letter yesterday. The content of this reply will be studied at a meeting that I intend to have with my senior officials later this afternoon, and a decision will be reached no later than Monday or Tuesday of next week.
However, I wish to assure the hon. member that my decision with regard to the protection of fish, in the face of multiple water use, will be taken bearing in mind that we should have the fullest use possible of our water resources, so long as no single resource suffers.


Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries arising from the answer which he gave to my colleague the hon. member for New Westminster, to do with the logging drive on the Stellako River. Would the minister be prepared to table the exchange of correspondence between himself and Hon. Mr. Williston of British Columbia regarding this matter?


Mr. Robichaud:: While I am prepared to table the correspondence, I shall not do so until after consulting with the B.C. minister, for provincial approval.



LOBSTER CATCH-EXTENSION OF SEASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Kings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries. I would ask the minister whether any decision has yet been arrived at with respect to the extension of the lobster fishing season in district 7B. How soon may we expect an announcement in this regard?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: Mr. Speaker, it would not be proper for me to decide on the extension of the lobster season in district 7B, as the season began only yesterday. I shall take the same position in regard to this district as I took in regard to district 4 in southwestern Nova Scotia. I do not think that a decision should be reached before the season is well advanced, as we shall then be able to assess and determine whether it is advisable to extend the season.

May 25, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry Considering the late date on which the season opened in district 7B, I have good reasons to believe that an extension could be considered toward the close of the season and a decision reached in this regard.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, some two
weeks ago I asked the Secretary of State to advise the house whether an agreement had been signed between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and Soviet Russia or any of the departments of the Kremlin relating to broadcasting arrangements, and if so what were the general provisions and purposes of that agreement. I wonder whether she is now in a position to answer that question.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize; I am informed that the answer is on my desk under about two pounds of paper. I hope to have it for the right hon. gentleman in the morning.



CONSUMER CREDIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government intends to establish again the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on consumer credit and prices? If so, when will the committee be set up?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I shall consult the appropriate authorities and answer later.



EXPO '67 RECORDING OF HISTORICAL EVENTS ON FILM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roger E. Regimbal (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State.
In view of the historic value of the events preceding the opening of Expo and those which take place every day, and also in view of the fact that thousands of Canadians will not have the opportunity to visit the various

pavilions, can the minister tell us if steps have been taken to put those events on film to be stored in the archives and to be distributed throughout the country when Expo is over?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a suggestion to the minister and, to the extent that it is a question, I think it could be put on the order paper.



MR. JUSTICE LANDREVILLE INQUIRY AS TO ACTION PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the approaching by-election in Sudbury, on Monday, there is interest in what the government will do about Mr. Justice Landreville. Sixteen days ago I was advised that the information would be given in a few days. Will the Solicitor General now say what the government will do? Will it impeach Mr. Justice Landreville or do something else? Will that information be given tomorrow, the last day before the by-election?


Robert Henry Winters: May I answer that question? The Prime Minister spoke to me this morning and asked me to send his regrets to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in the event he asked this question. He expressed his regrets that he was detained today, and said that he will reply at the earliest possible date.


John George Diefenbaker: Tomorrow? In reciprocating to the Acting Prime Minister for the Prime Minister's good wishes, I nevertheless ask the Prime Minister to answer tomorrow. The people want to know. Next week will be too late.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. gentleman is imputing motives.



IMMIGRATION ACT


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Immigration Act to increase from twelve million dollars to twenty million dollars the present limit on the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time that may be made to enable the
May 25. 1967

Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make loans to immigrants to assist them with the expenses of their transportation to Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, this resolution introduces what must be one of the shortest items of legislation ever proposed in parliament. It seeks to amend one word in the Immigration Act, changing the word "twelve" to "twenty". The change is far from trivial, however, because the words following are "million dollars".
The proposal is to raise from $12 million to $20 million the ceiling on the amount of assisted passage loans to immigrants that may be outstanding at any one time. The change is necessary because of the relatively large numbers of immigrants who have been coming to Canada recently. The present ceiling would force us to cut down sharply the assistance we are able to give.
I think we agree, with little difficulty, that such action would be undesirable and unfair. I hope therefore that we can proceed soon to consider the bill itself. We are dealing of course with a financial measure and a resolution is necessary. The bill itself is so short and simple that I hope, if the house agrees, I might make my detailed explanation when we come to second reading. I hope the house will give unanimous consent that we go immediately to second reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is the bill printed?


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
The minister is asking us to increase from $12 million to $20 million the present limit on the total amount of advances for transportation of immigrants. Could he give us the results of his last trip to Paris with regard to French immigration and provide us with the number of French immigrants? Could we be informed of the results obtained since his last initiatives?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, it will surely be possible to give the results. We have the figures, but I do not have them here. I could supply them to the hon. member as soon as I receive them from the department.


Gilles Grégoire: Could the minister give them to us during his statement on motion for second reading?
Immigration Act


Jean Marchand: Probably, Mr. Chairman. [English]


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: Mr. Chairman, normally we would wish to accommodate the minister in his suggestion. When such suggestions are normally made they are preceded by consultations across the floor of the house. Such consultations to the best of my knowledge have not taken place, and there are questions which the minister ought to answer before we proceed to second reading of the bill.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
If the bill is as simple as the minister has indicated I would have no objection to seeing it read the second time and given final approval today. But I think the proper time to make a full and elaborate statement as to its purpose is now, on the resolution stage. If we accept the minister's statement at its face value, then the bill amounts to nothing more than a simple piece of financial window dressing, in which case it will come as a great disappointment to the house. We on this side were hoping that the resolution would accomplish something more than appears on the face of it-that it would mark a new approach to immigration policy as far as assistance to immigrants is concerned, rather than a continuation of the piecemeal, patchwork programs of the past.
I think the time has come to adopt imaginative and dynamic new policies in relation to the assistance of immigrants. All that is proposed here is that the amount of money available in the revolving fund should be increased. This is of course important; it shows we are making progress. But there has been no change in principle-no real improvement.
The minister should have given us an introductory statement, making it clear that the government intends to follow a dynamic immigration policy and is not merely coasting along. This proposal merely to increase the number of dollars available is less than satisfactory, for a number of reasons. In the first place, it seems to offer less than the fulfilment of the government's own proposals as set out in the white paper. At page 38 of that document, after a discussion of the assisted passage scheme which is authorized by section 69 of the Immigration Act, we find these words:
However, the scheme needs revision to reflect the universal and non-discriminatory selection policy outlined in this white paper. Therefore, subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary funds, it is proposed that loans be made available on a universal basis to qualified unsponsored immigrants, including their wives and minor dependant children, up to a maximum of $1,500 for a family unit.

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
When the minister tells us that all we need do is increase the amount, he is not even carrying out the policy enunciated in the white paper itself. As well as I can recall, the assisted passage scheme has been confined exclusively in the past to Europe, and indeed it does not extend to all parts of Europe; it is inapplicable in Yugoslavia or Soviet bloc countries, for the simple reason that unsponsored immigrants are not normally accepted from those countries. The Netherlands and Norway-in other days, at least, and probably now-object to the operation of the scheme within their borders. I believe also that the scheme does not operate in Malta, in Spain or in the Azores. Today we are being asked to accept a change from $12 million to $20 million blindly, in the absence of any indication of what is planned or whether there will be any change in basic policy.
I suggest that the committee must decide whether a loan scheme is sufficient or whether a system of subsidy should be coupled with it. The white paper rejects out of hand the use of migrant subsidies as a promotional device. I am far from certain that this is the correct attitude. Australia has had a most satisfactory experience with a system of subsidization. I have in hand a pamphlet which describes the Australian system. Under this scheme the fare, door to door, from the British Isles to Australia is only ten pounds sterling. Young people under 19 travel free. This means that a husband and wife with any number of children under 19 can go to Australia at a total cost in fares of only twenty pounds sterling or about sixty dollars Canadian. Those who travel under this assisted passage scheme use the normal passenger shipping services or air lines. Their payment of ten pounds toward the cost is simply the result of an arrangement between themselves and the government of Australia; as far as the shipping or air line companies are concerned, passengers have the same status and accommodation as anyone who has paid the full economy class fare.
There can be no doubt that Australia has been much more successful than Canada has been in the promotion of immigration from the British Isles. In most years their intake has exceeded ours by two to one. This should not, and need not, be the case. In my view this country has attractions unequalled by those of our great sister land. But it is a fact that the promotion of immigration by Australia has been much more consistent and much more vigorous than ours. I believe the government and the special joint committee

of the Senate and the House of Commons should examine Australia's promotional efforts with a view to emulating them. For the present, we simply cannot compete in the British Isles with the financial allurements offered by Australia. As competition for desirable immigrants grows, I feel we may become increasingly shut out of the British Isles unless we adopt new and more vigorous policies.
The weakness of this resolution is that it deals only with assisted passages-with transportation costs. But the period during which a new immigrant may well require most assistance is during the first weeks, or months, of his settlement in Canada. Yet there is not a word in this resolution about settlement arrangements-about educational facilities, language instruction, facilities for personal guidance or advice to immigrants after their arrival here.
A basic weakness of the department for years has been a too great concentration of interest on the landing of immigrants in Canada, leaving resultant problems to the provinces and the municipalities. My feeling is that this is not good enough and that a major expansion of the settlement, education and welfare programs of the Department of Manpower and Immigration is essential. The very minimum requirement is genuine coordination with provincial and municipal programs. It is not enough to pay travel expenses and then leave the immigrant on his own, without counseling, without guidance, without language instruction, and dependant solely upon local services which, to say the least, are of diverse quality from community to community. When the government is seeking money to pay travel expenses for immigrants, the least it owes the House of Commons is to tell hon. members whether it has any plans at all to expand the services available to these newly-arrived persons.
Another failure, I suggest-


Jean Marchand: Do I understand that the hon. member refuses to give unanimous consent? I just want to know.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: The minister is quite right. I intend to make a speech on this resolution, and as far as I am concerned the resolution may then pass and I am prepared to deal with the bill this afternoon. But if the minister expects any co-operation from this side of the house, he knows perfectly well that I usually act as critic on immigration matters, and I am as near as the nearest
May 25, 1967

telephone. All he has to do is telephone me, not attempt to pull some stunt on the floor of the House of Commons.


Jean Marchand: May I mention to the hon.
member that yesterday the acting house leader indicated that the bill we are dealing with would be called today. About a month ago I spoke to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and told him-unfortunately the hon. member for Carleton was not here at the time-that this fund would run out of money during May. He said he would be ready to co-operate during the new session, even during the debate in reply to the speech from the throne.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: The minister will get his resolution through faster if he is prepared to be co-operative. I intend to make my statements in respect of what I believe are the deficiencies in this resolution, and I expect the minister to answer them. So far as I am concerned I am prepared to go ahead and deal with the second reading of the bill and, if necessary, put it through all stages this afternoon. But I venture to suggest that the minister, if he wants to get business through this house, knows perfectly well to whom he should come and discuss immigration matters, at least so far as the official opposition is concerned. He has enough experience already to know that.
I believe another deficiency of this resolution is that it deals not at all with the integration of the assisted passage proposals with the plans formulated by at least some of the provinces. For example, in May, 1966, the government of Manitoba embarked upon a new free passage program to attract immigrants to that province. What discussions have there been between the federal department and the government of Manitoba? How has the Manitoba scheme been working? How will it fit in with the proposals to follow this resolution? Have any of the other provinces adopted such plans or are they discussing them with the department of immigration? What are the Quebec proposals? What are the results of Premier Johnson's discussions in Paris? I believe the committee is entitled to know the answers to these questions before the resolution passes.
Another matter which I suggest is not at all clear from the resolution is whether transportation costs will be available to former Canadian citizens and their dependants established abroad who seek now to resettle in
Immigration Act
Canada. I believe this to be a very fruitful field and that travel costs should clearly be available to such persons.
The repatriation of Canadians now abroad is an important factor which should not be airily dismissed. Personally I was gratified that the government has adopted the basic principles of the report of Dr. E. F. Sheffield and Miss Mary Margot McGrail on the retrieval of Canadian graduate students from abroad. That report can be a significant contribution to future Canadian intellectual development.
The house, Mr. Chairman, knows that I am an unregenerate expansionist in immigration policy. Canada simply cannot achieve her manifest destiny without an increase in population much greater than can be achieved by natural growth. We need as well the cultural advantages of the best immigrants from other lands, and we need the continuing stimulus to our economy which expanded immigration brings.
I was disturbed to hear a senior member of the New Democratic party advocating in the house earlier this week a tap-off immigration policy because there is unemployment in some trades. That, sir, is totally contrary to my thinking and my beliefs. A tap-on, tap-off approach to immigration is self-defeating. I believe in immigration as a stimulus, not a depressant, to the economy, and a proper, consistent policy of immigrant selection will create additional jobs for Canadians rather than deprive Canadians of jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Albert Bell: I do not want to be involved in a chicken and egg argument, but it is demonstrable that our periods of highest immigration intake have been our periods of maximum prosperity and national progress. Which comes first and which comes second, I care not. I believe they go hand in hand, and I hope the minister will pay no attention to the policy of the N.D.P. member of turning the tap off at the slightest sign of economic disturbance. My view is that we must set definite national objectives and then refuse to be deflected from them by every stray wind in the economic atmosphere.
We are prepared to support this resolution, but it simply does not begin to deal with the problem. It is just playing around with the fringes of what is a basic problem. I hope that the minister who has had perhaps the best press and public relations build up, of all

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
the cabinet, unequalled by any previous minister oi immigration, will seek to establish entitlement to the accolades. If the mountainous labours on immigration produce mice of the vintage now under discussion in this committee I say that disillusionment is inevitable and retribution sure.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a resolution preparatory to a bill which I understand is to be of a very narrow nature, increasing the amount of money available to the department for loans for assisted passage from $12 million to $20 million. On an earlier occasion when I followed the hon. member for Carleton in discussing the question of immigration I said that whenever I listened to the hon. member speak on immigration it seemed to me that what he was saying was, "Do as I say, not as I did," because to my knowledge this country never had so few immigrants as when the hon. member for Carleton was the minister for citizenship and immigration. I do not blame him. It happens that at that time the country did have large scale unemployment, and any minister in charge of immigration and any government would take that into consideration when setting out objectives.
Before continuing I wish to say I do not know which member of the New Democratic party the hon. member for Carleton referred to when he said that a senior N.D.P. member of parliament had urged turning off the tap on immigration. If there was such a member,
I want to say he was speaking only for himself and did not speak for our party. Our party has supported and will continue to support increased immigration. We recognize the fact that there are some problems. We recognize that when there is large scale unemployment that is something which has to be given consideration, but we believe and have constantly said for a long number of years that Canada needs more people and that immigration on a large scale is necessary. That is the policy of our party. We have expressed it previously, and I express it once more on behalf of our party.
We in the N.D.P. will support this resolution and the bill which will follow it. If we are going to have 25 per cent, 30 per cent or 35 per cent more immigration than we have had in recent years, which seems to be the level of increase to date this year, then naturally we shall have to provide more money for assisted passages.
I am not certain that I agree entirely with the hon. member for Carleton who thinks the 
time has come for us to wipe out the program of loans for assisted passages and replace it by a system of grants covering passage and other expenses of new immigrants. However, if we are to continue having much larger immigration from countries in southern Europe and from countries behind the iron curtain, involving people who are less affluent than those who come from Great Britain and other countries of northern and western Europe, it may be that we will have to assist them both with passage expenses and expenses of their establishment in Canada. This is a question which the department should keep under constant study. The department should not have fixed views on it, and I would hope that the standing committee which deals with immigration would look at this question when it meets again and examine our record in comparison with Australia to see whether we ought to change our policy. It is something worth considering.
I share the feelings of the hon. member for Carleton in expressing disappointment that this resolution and the bill to follow it deal with such a narrow part of the immigration question, particularly in the light of the white paper which promised such basic changes in our immigration policy and in the light of the statement made by the minister to the special joint committee which studied the white paper when he promised even more changes than those enunciated in the white paper and further expansion in the program of immigration.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I am not critical of the minister. The minister gave us a very brief and reasonable explanation of what will be contained in the bill. There is, however, nothing in what the minister said nor in what will be contained in the bill to indicate how far the government intends to go or how quickly it intends to proceed with the principles enunciated in the white paper and the principles which the minister has been enunciating in the speeches he has made all across the country. I join with the hon. member for Carleton and many others who have tried to indicate to the government that along with large scale immigration, which all of us support, tremendous problems will arise and in fact have arisen. The hon. member for Carleton raised in the house-this has been mentioned by myself and other members-the question of the tremendous problem which this country has to face when we have large scale immigration from countries in which the native tongue is
May 25, 1967

neither English nor French. We have had and will continue to have large scale immigration from countries such as Italy, Greece, Portugal and Spain. I am all for this. It seems to me, however, that when the federal government encourages this kind of immigration it ought to face up to the fact that it is creating tremendous problems for the cities and provinces to which these immigrants come, eventually for the federal government, and indeed for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who wears two hats.
There has been sufficient research and study for us to know that in cities like Toronto and Montreal the children of immigrants who come from the countries I have mentioned, for example, Italy, are not continuing their schooling. They are not finishing high school even though in cities such as Toronto the educational system is geared in such a way that it encourages them to attend high school. The drop-out rate is tremendous. I am told that the city of Toronto is spending in the neighbourhood of $1,500,000 a year in the field of education to try to encourage these people to remain in school and to learn English so they will be in a position to fit into society.
The Minister of Justice is here. He might well interrupt me as he interrupted my colleague from Danforth the other day when he was discussing the question of housing. I know that under our constitution the question of education is a provincial responsibility. The fact is, however, that these people who can speak neither English nor French are coming to Canada. I support the idea of their coming here. They come here with the encouragement of the federal government.
Unless we can encourage these people to learn English or French so they will be able to integrate into our society and unless we begin to co-operate with the provinces and help to finance the provincial programs so this can be done, the result of our failure to do so will show up a few years from now. At that time the minister in his capacity as minister of manpower will have the problem of trying to find jobs for people who to a large extent will be unemployable simply because they do not know the languages and the other techniques which are necessary in our society in order to find and hold a job. It seems to me that the minister and his department must face up to this problem now and not later.
There is one other problem which I think must be faced by the department. I greet with approval the statement of the minister-and 1 am sure this is spelled out in the legislation
Immigration Act
-that from now on the immigration policy of the government will be one in which there will be no vestige of the past discriminations that have been apparent with regard to race, colour and creed. I believe that more than the passage of legislation will be required in order to bring this into effect. In the past we have had not one but many illustrations of cases where officers of the department in the field have made very plain, from the type of questions which have been asked of immigrants and from the treatment prospective immigrants have received, that they do hold discriminatory views. In adopting these new policies it seems to me it is the responsibility of the department to make sure that the people who make the decisions know what is the policy of the department and the government so that discrimination on the basis of race, colour or creed will in fact disappear.
I should like to mention from memory a case which we had recently in the city of Winnipeg concerning an immigrant from the West Indies. This person was ordered to leave the country. He appealed his case. The appeal was refused by the department and he went to the court. The chief justice of the appeal court was scathing in his condemnation of the handling of the case by the department. The department furnished me with a copy of the proceedings of the appeal board. The questions were of a nature which indicated clearly that the officer in charge certainly had discriminatory views. The man was asked whether he was married. He replied that he was not. Then he was asked whether he had any children. I suggest to the minister that no officer of the department would ask that question of a white would-be immigrant. The only reason that question would be asked would be because of the prejudiced view of the departmental officer that somebody who is non-white would have lower morals than anyone else. I suggest that as soon as the legislation arising out of the white paper is enacted the minister and his department should adopt a crash program to educate the departmental officers. I would hate to see the same type of difficulty arise in respect of this department as arose in respect of the manpower offices and which was recently brought to the attention of the minister and his department.
I shall close by saying that if this resolution is merely a simple bill to increase the amount of money in the fund to $20 million in order to assist immigrants with the expenses of their transportation, we in this party will

May 25, 1987
Immigration Act
co-operate with the government. I do not think we will interfere with the passage of this bill through all stages today. I would hope, however, that at a very early date the minister would find some opportunity to inform the house and the country concerning the kind of legislation he intends to bring in to implement the very fine principles which the minister has been enunciating from one end of the country to the other. I should like to see some action on the speeches the minister has been making.
[DOT] (3:50 p.ra.)


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to comment on this resolution this afternoon I might point out that I have no objection to increasing the amount of the revolving fund available to would-be immigrants to this country, but in view of paragraph 34 of the white paper on immigration I feel I must speak in a definite way.
The House of Commons is given little if any opportunity to make comments in respect of the continual demands from one section of this country for better treatment than any other portion. When the announcement was made that certain radio stations were being converted to 100 per cent French usage and efforts were made to introduce the matter in the House of Commons we were told quite blandly by members of the cabinet that this matter had nothing to do with parliament but was a matter for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Board of Broadcast Governors. All we have to do is foot the bill to the tune of about $143 million this year.
When arrangements were made to provide bonuses for bilingual people as compared with unilingual people an effort was made to discuss it on the floor of the house and we were told then that this was a civil service commission matter which had nothing to do with parliament. We now have before us a resolution to increase from $12 million to $20 million the revolving fund to assist immigrants with the expenses of their transportation to Canada, and I relate the resolution directly to paragraph 34 of the white paper on immigration.
I have a copy of the white paper in my hand as well as four statements by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in respect of the white paper. May I preface my remarks by pointing out that the term "white paper" is a colloquial term for a government statement of policy. This definition is taken from page 659 of the Encyclopedia of Parliament by Norman Wilding and Philip
[Mr. Orlikow. j
Laundy. Mr. Laundy, by the way, is now a senior officer of the parliamentary library, having been engaged previously in similar work in Southern Rhodesia. He writes that "white paper" is a colloquial term for a government statement of policy, and I should like to emphasize the adjective "colloquial" because there are people in this country who might tell you that a white paper is something that can never be criticized, as if it almost came down with the tablets from the top of Mount Sinai.
I happen to be on the immigration study group of the Liberal party and I attended a number of meetings with the deputy minister and on occasion the present minister to discuss matters of immigration of importance to this nation. I was present in the minister's office with a group of Liberal members the night before the white paper came out. The deputy minister was there as well as senior officials of the department, and a very healthy discussion took place in the minister's office at his invitation.
A number of things were said and a number of things transpired that were for the good of Canada, but I will never forget that when one member of parliament asked why we could not look at the white paper that night before it was issued the next day there was absolute holy horror on the part of some at the thought that a member of parliament on the government side of the house should ask to see the white paper before it was introduced. Every member of the Liberal party is supposed to vote 100 per cent for the white paper or be called a rebel, a disturber or a person who does not co-operate with the government. What this really means is the cabinet. I never saw the Canadian immigration policy or white paper until every other member of parliament was given a copy last October, and I have been waiting since for an opportunity to speak about paragraph 34.
Let me also preface my remarks by reference to a statement in that book regarding the C.B.C. to which frequent reference has been made, "Nation and Province" by Professor J. C. Ricker and Professor J. T. Say-well. At page 43 the following statement appears:
So important is the cabinet that many people use the words cabinet and government as though they were synonymous.
I am sorry to say that members of the cabinet also use the words government and cabinet as though they were synonymous. As a result a private member, so-called, is given no opportunity to discuss many matters and
May 25, 1967



he does so at the risk of being called a disturber, a rebel, a hermit or a heretic. Private members are never asked about or told anything in advance.
In this regard let me refer hon. members to the remarks of the hon. member for Keno-ra-Rainy River of last October 31 during the debate on interim supply. They can be found in Hansard for last year at pages 9342 and 9343. At that time he pointed out that private members are asked nothing but are supposed to support measures laid before them without prior notice. The hon. member for Carleton need not think he is standing alone in not being advised of what is to be placed on the floor of the House of Commons. He is only one of a host of members including those on the so-called government side who are not told what is coming before the house.
In reference to paragraph 34 of the white paper let me point out that I speak only for the 70 per cent of the people of this country who are not French speaking, and no doubt I will be called a rabblerouser for speaking in this way. I have in my hand a copy of the March 20, 1967, issue of the Ottawa Journal. Under a two-column heading "Chretien Tells Rally", and, "French Must O.K. Cabinet Moves", we find the following statement:
Jean Chretien, parliamentary secretary to finance minister Sharp, said during the week end that French Canadian members of the federal cabinet "are in a position of strength at Ottawa".
"Nothing can be done without the agreement of the French speaking ministers," Mr. Chretien told a Liberal meeting here.
This article refers to a statement he made at Lachute. It is interesting to note that in Quebec French Canadian votes for the Liberal party during the last election, as shown in the returns by the chief electoral officer and in the Parliamentary Guide, numbered 742,824. The Liberals did not even receive half of the votes in the province of Quebec. The Liberals are in a minority position in Quebec, but according to Mr. Chretien nothing can be done without the agreement of the French speaking ministers. If the English were to say that nothing could be done without the agreement of the English speaking ministers, we would be called trouble-makers and told that there were minorities in the house which were being ignored. I am talking about majorities being ignored. The 742,824 French Liberal votes in Quebec represented 9.5 per cent of the total vote polled in Canada in the last election, but as the former parliamentary secretary said, nothing can be done
Immigration Act
without the agreement of the French speaking cabinet members.
I could go on at length in this regard but immigration is the matter before us. Requests are always being made by the French speaking section of this country for special treatment. The premier of Quebec has said that he will ignore the Supreme Court of Canada if it makes a ruling with regard to the pension rights of the provinces. We have all heard the statement that Labrador should be turned over to Quebec, that all the islands in Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait should be turned over to Quebec, and that the Indians and Eskimos in Quebec should be removed from the jurisdiction of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and placed under the jurisdiction of Quebec. I hope no one thinks that this is the end of the requests which will come from that one section of confederation. The Quebec federation of St. Jean Baptiste Societies is urging that all new Canadians not of British origin who enrol children in Quebec schools for the first time this fall be compelled to place them in French language schools.
The Globe and Mail of Wednesday, May 10, 1967, contained the following statement:
It would be dismaying to think of Quebec responding to these advances by adopting a policy of compulsory designation of schools to all newcomers-
Whence came this idea? It came from no other source than the Canadian government's white paper on immigration dated October, 1966, and issued by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In paragraph 34 we read, for the first time in the history of Canada, that the Canadian government-the minister really means "cabinet", not "government" -that the present cabinet is anxious to change the age-long actions of immigrants to Canada settling west of the Ottawa river. This policy is set out in paragraph 34 of the white paper on immigration and reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There is a broader consideration affecting the distribution of immigrants. While it has been spread more widely since the war than often in the past, it is still true to say that immigration effectively begins at the island of Montreal and goes west. The rate of immigration to areas east of the Ottawa river is generally low. Thus, disproportionately little of our immigration increases our French speaking population. This is largely because France, for many years now, has felt for itself a problem of relatively declining population and therefore has been much more discouraging of emigration than a country such as Britain. However, it also appears that some potential immigrants have felt

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
that Quebec has provided a less favourable environment for immigrants than have most of the English speaking provinces. Accordingly, while a good many immigrants arrive with little knowledge of either of our official languages-
That is incorrect, but it is here in a so-called government white paper. There is only one official language in Canada.
-English is the language that is most often learned. This is an imbalance which the government-
He means ''cabinet".
-is anxious to correct by any practicable means.
In paragraph 40 the minister writes that immigration must be closely related to truly national objectives. Surely we are entitled to ask, is one of these national objectives going to be the forcing of immigrants into the area east of the Ottawa river in order that the cabinet may correct the imbalance between English speaking and French speaking people as outlined in paragraph 34?
In a ten-page memorandum outlining "A New Selection Policy for Immigration", dated April 10 and issued by the minister, it is stated:
Lastly, there is the question of where in the country the immigrant is going. If he is aiming at an area where employment prospects generally are strong, his chances of satisfactory settlement will be improved even if his qualifications are somewhat marginal.
On pages 3 and 4 of "Background Notes for White Paper on Immigration" the minister advised the House of Commons immigration committee:
In paragraph 34 it is stated that the government proposes to seek a solution to the imbalance existing at present in the integration of new arrivals into English and French speaking communities. One very important project which has recently been launched is an exhaustive study of the problems of adjustment facing new French speaking arrivals especially in French speaking communities with a view to attracting and holding more substantial numbers of French speaking immigrants. The first phase of this research program will involve interviewing in depth representative samples of French Canadians, fairly recently arrived French immigrants and lastly French speaking immigrants who for one reason or another have found it necessary to return to their native countries. This first phase will also involve an examination of the attitudes of French speaking populations toward emigration to Canada and to French Canada in particular. The second phase of the program is to consist of a larger study of French speaking immigrants designed to establish their geographic, occupational and job mobility patterns and to discover the underlying economic, social and psychological forces determining their attitudes.
Of possibly more immediate effect is a re-evaluation of our operations in France with a view to improving our capabilities there.

These statements clearly say that certain people seem determined to direct immigrants to that part of Canada east oi the Ottawa river, although members of parliament like the hon. member for Villeneuve keep rising in the House of Commons to ask why it is that unemployment statistics for the province of Quebec month after month and year after year are 35 per cent of the national unemployment total. These figures are borne out by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports for December, 1966 and January, 1967. The four Atlantic provinces have an even greater proportion of unemployment than Quebec.
These two excerpts from the white paper on immigration clearly show a conflict in planning. In one sentence we are advised that if the immigrant is aiming at an area where employment prospects generally are strong his chances of satisfactory settlement will be good, while the second quotation intimates that the cabinet wants to increase the settlement of immigrants in provinces east of the Ottawa river where unemployment is high, in an effort to correct what is described as an imbalance between two tongues.
I have in my hand a statement showing the equalization payments made to the various provinces from 1959-60 to 1967-68. These so-called equalization payments run into millions of dollars, in the case of Quebec $260 million this year. These so-called equalization payments are based on provincial population. They are the payments that the Canadian government makes to the "have not" provinces, as they are described or as the Minister of Finance described them, as found in Hansard of March 9 of this year, the "less fortunate provinces." These equalization payments are made to the "have not" or the "less fortunate" provinces by the federal government by the simple expediency of withholding federal funds from what are known as the "have" provinces, namely, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
The table of figures which I received from the Department of Finance this very month shows clearly that every one of the five provinces east of the Ottawa river is a "have not" province or a "less fortunate province", in the words of the Minister of Finance. Yet according to the white paper on immigration we are to advance help and money to settle people in the "have not" provinces because they are east of the Ottawa river, rather than let them find their own way to the fortunate provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia which are described as "have" provinces for the basis of calculating equalization payments
May 25, 1967

Immigration Act
that are being made to some provinces which are not entitled to them at the present time and never have been entitled to them.
Now that the white paper on immigration has publicized the cabinet's evident desire to correct an imbalance in the populations speaking the two major languages in Canada,
I desire to know just how great this imbalance is supposed to be. Is it of such dimensions that it will take years of very heavy immigration to satisfy the desires of the cabinet, or is it of such minute proportions that the country might be expected to adjust the figures to the satisfaction of the administration in a short time? Are we going to refuse admission to Canada because of this so-called imbalance, of well educated and skilled persons who speak one language and give preference to people of another language even if their skills and education are not the equal of those would-be immigrants of another tongue? I am anxious to learn as soon as possible just how great an enterprise Canada is expected to take on in its efforts to correct this so-called imbalance.
For that reason I endeavoured this month to place a written question on the order paper of the House of Commons in an effort to ascertain just how serious a challenge has been made to Canada by the cabinet. Therefore I addressed this question to the Clerk of the House of Commons with the request that it be placed on the order paper: Question, May 8, 1967
In the white paper entitled "Canadian Immigration Policy. 1966" it is stated that "while a good many immigrants arrive with little knowledge . . . English is the language that is most often learned. This is an imbalance which the government is anxious to correct." What date in Canadian history was satisfactory to the present cabinet as the day on which the imbalance between French and English speaking peoples would have been satisfactory to the cabinet? Will this be the target of the cabinet's efforts as mentioned in paragraph 34 of the white paper?
You will be interested in the reply I received from the Clerk Assistant of the House of Commons:
When you ask what date in Canadian history was satisfactory to the present cabinet about a certain proposition it seems to me this is contrary to citation 171 (gg) which says that a question must not "seek information about matters which are in their nature secret, such as decisions or proceedings of cabinet, advice given to Crown by law officers, etc ..."
It seems to me also that the question is contrary to citation 171 (w) which says that a question must not "raise a matter of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question."
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
The white paper sets out policy, and although we know there is a white paper on immigration we never saw the policy which is set out in it before it was issued. The answer continues:
-your question is against Citation 171 (bb) which says that a question cannot be asked which "asks the government's opinion on matters of policy".
From this reply one realizes that Canada is expected to correct a situation mentioned by the cabinet of which we have not been given the dimensions. Is this a task which is going to occupy us during the remainder of our taxpaying years, or will our children and grandchildren have to slave to correct this imbalance which is as yet undefined?


The Chairman:: I must advise the hon. member for York-Humber that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the hon. member wish to continue? Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is denied more time by his own party.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, may I point out that if I am not allowed to complete my speech at the present time I will continue on second reading. I would rather finish it now but I will do so on second reading if at no other time.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Liberal dictatorship.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, as many
others, I did not intend to speak, to avoid delaying the resolution introduced by the minister. But it will be understood, Mr. Chairman, that after the aggressive and insulting remarks of the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) I cannot be silent and give the country, particularly the people of my province and those of my constituency, the impression that we are willing to hear such things without recording at least a protest.
Fortunately, I do not believe that Canadians of the ten provinces are as narrow-minded as the member for York-Humber. Quite the opposite, I think that most are more open-minded and this gives us ground to hope, that

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
we shall very shortly achieve what we call national unity at home.
I should like to tell the member for York-Humber that he is light-headedly adding fuel to the fire, that he is creating dissent in this country and that his conduct is that of a traitor to confederation, in saying such things.
Mr. Chairman, at a time when the country is confronted with various problems, when we are nearing the solutions to these problems in short, at a time when all men of goodwill are ready to sit at the conference table to try to ease the remaining differences of opinion, it is most unfortunate that a man who has been elected to this parliament should gleefully try to undo what most parliamentarians are trying to solve in this year of the centennial.
The member for York-Humber said in this house a few weeks ago that his grandfather was buried in the cemetery at Trois-Rivieres. May he rest in peace. Although I did not know him, my feeling is that the grandfather of the member for York-Humber showed more intelligence and more true Canadianism than is being shown here by the member for York-Humber.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that the member for York-Humber should be reminded that in my province and in my constituency Englishspeaking Canadians are treated with much, much more understanding than he extends to French speaking citizens. I wish to remind him once again that, in our area, we accept immigrants from all countries, but especially from England and Ireland, that they are addressed in their own language when dealing with municipal, school and provincial authorities. They are members of our organizations and clubs.
Even though I represent one of the oldest French cities in North America, I cannot remember within living memory having witnessed any racial quarrels in Trois-Rivieres. There are 23,500 French speaking families in my riding and only 497 English speaking families, but we get along well together, because we try to put into practice the word of the Gospel which promises peace to men of good will if they keep on living in mutual understanding instead of showing a destructive fanaticism, as the hon. member for York-Humber does at every opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I am quite surprised to see that the Liberal party tolerates within its ranks someone who is far from advocating the Liberal philosophy of mutual understanding between the two races. I am even under the impression that the Conservative party

would be embarrassed to have him as a member, because I have still to find, or even to hear such inflammatory statements by members of the Conservative party or of any other party in this house.
Even though some members of other parties, or of the Liberal party, share to a certain extent the views of the hon. member for York-Humber, I agree that they have at least the decency not to abuse and to refrain from adding fuel to the fire, which would make our present difficulties more complicated. I think that the immigrants who come here-


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly, Mr. Chairman.


Auguste Choquette: Is the hon. member aware that the hon. member for York-Humber has been formally disowned by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the chairman of the national caucus as the result of his statements?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege. The two statements made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere are absolutely incorrect.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of privilege-

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for York-Humber made statements which were publicly disowned by the chairman of the national caucus and by the Prime Minister, who has already said that a member with this kind of ideology did not deserve to be recognized by the Liberal party. This is what was said.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) for reminding me exactly of what I read myself and what the other members have read in the papers, not very long ago. Of course, I was not there to ascertain facts, but I believe that the papers would not have made such reports if it had not been the truth.
In any case, Mr. Chairman, I also wish to repeat for the guidance of the hon. member for York-Humber and those who might share
May 25. 1987

his view-I believe there are very lew inside these walls and I hope that there are no others-that the province of Quebec is not claiming any special privilege which the other provinces do not enjoy.
If it does happen that, from time to time, we want to run our own business, while other provinces are satisfied with the management of federal government in certain fields, that is due to the fact that there are Canadians in other areas, fortunately very few, who take extremist attitudes, such as that of the hon. member for York-Humber, and who insult us in our most legitimate pride and lead us to feel some concern, in this kind instinct of self-preservation which is ours. We want to live as Canadians, as full-pledged Canadians; we want, in this country, to accept our share of sacrifice and to discharge our duties.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
There are certain fields, in Canada, which are essential, which are part of our own being, as for instance our tongue. When we talk about promoting French-speaking immigration, I can reassure the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), because it has never been a great success up to now, and it seems that things will not improve, since the French people do not seem very inclined to emigrate to Canada. We simply want to give them the opportunities enjoyed by all the other races and particularly by the Englishspeaking people.
I would advise all hon. members who care to be men of goodwill to come and live for a few weeks in the province of Quebec, in my riding, where I shall have the pleasure to guide them and to introduce them to everyone, so that they may discover the true image of the province of Quebec. I do not invite the hon. member of York-Humber, unless he would come to pray on the grave of his venerable grandfather and ask for his forgiveness for all his insults to the people of my town who honour his memory, since he rests among us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on the resolution moved by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand). I feel the minister could have given us more details in his opening statement.
We are now being asked to increase from $12 million to $20 million the amount to be spent on encouraging immigration to Canada. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is all very well to increase it from $12 million to $20 million, but what is the aim of the minister? Are we asked to increase the amount because
Immigration Act
transportation costs more or because the immigrants are asking higher loans? Is it that more immigrants are to come or that the same number will come but from farther away, or what? Is it that immigration to Canada is to be increased or merely that it has grown more costly to install immigrants? The minister told us nothing about that. Of course, he can make it up on second reading.
I also wish the minister would inform us of the results of representations undertaken by him in his last visit to Paris, where he made what is referred to as a special effort to facilitate the entry of French immigrants into Canada. I should like to know whether the minister can inform us of the results of his representations. If there were any increases, what were they? I should also like to know whether those French immigrants who came to Canada have settled mainly in Quebec or in other provinces. I believe that the minister could take the opportunity provided by the presentation of this bill to give us some information.
Now, I do not want to talk any longer, Mr. Chairman. I simply wanted to put those few questions to the minister, for they are points in which we are interested.
Now, I wonder also whether the last public statement made by the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration is likely to encourage French immigration? When, for instance, the minister states that the recent agreements between France and Quebec may serve France's imperialistic designs with respect to Canada, one has but to note the general reaction to such a statement, in the Quebec government as well as in the Quebec newspapers, to wonder whether the minister should not finally retract and admit that, during an election meeting, his words may have gone beyond his thought. Anyway, if the Minister of Manpower and Immigration contends there are really French imperialistic designs here, in Canada, does he believe when saying so, that those designs will be met by means of a greater French immigration? Will the minister then endeavour to discourage French immigration, for fear those new French immigrants should come here to help the imperialistic designs that he himself may see in certain agreements entered into between France and Quebec?
Since we are speaking of immigration, Mr. Chairman, and since I know that this last statement may influence somewhat the quality and quantity of French immigration to Quebec and Canada, I wonder whether the

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
minister should not also take this opportunity to apologize, or to correct or explain his last statements. The minister will perhaps thank me for giving him this opportunity, for I am convinced that the cannot be very pleased. His statement may have been wrongly interpreted, which can happen; newspapermen are often very busy and may misconstrue a statement. That is what I want to believe, Mr. Chairman, for that statement is so patently unfounded and rash as to be quite incredible. We would rather believe that it is a sort of ostracism on the part of a federal minister that Quebec could have signed certain agreements with the French government. Perhaps the minister made his statement out of resentment? But, in that case, I would tell the Minister of Immigration that he should not resent the agreements concluded between Quebec and France. On the contrary, he should be glad and, instead of seeking to lessen their effect, try to derive maximum benefit from these agreements for his French-Canadian countrymen in Quebec.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should, on second reading of this resolution answer the questions put to him by myself and others. I also think he should prove his understanding and use his judgement. He should be glad to take the opportunity I am giving him to explain or correct some of his statements which have been published in the newspapers. They may have been somewhat altered but the minister should set the record straight. If it should happen, and I would find that hard to believe, that the minister has actually said something like that I think that, in that case, he should apologize, retract and admit-and we will understand that, Mr. Chairman-that his words went beyond his thought. We will understand.
And I shall tell him, in conclusion, that a fault confessed is half redressed. Therefore, I hope that the minister will accept to set the record straight. He has a good opportunity to do so. Otherwise, the minister will be in a worse situation, because I was reading a few minutes ago what an editorialist of the newspaper La Presse said:
Mr. Marchand really considers us as a bunch of idiots.
I think that the minister would not like to leave that impression, especially among editorialists, and still less among those of La Presse. This editorialist said also that the minister is spreading apprehension. I am convinced that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration does not intend to start here in 
Ottawa witch-hunting activities as Quebec has known during the Duplessis period. I think the minister protested too much against that to play the same game and do exactly what was done during the Duplessis period, when the minister was president of the C.N.T.U.
In my opinion, the minister has a good opportunity to set the record straight and, if necessary, to retract himself, since a fault confessed is half redressed.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ryan):: Shall the resolution carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give us the same explanations?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I would have no objection to do so if we proceeded immediately to second reading and I would answer at once the questions which have been put to me.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could the to point out to the minister that the procedure at the resolution stage is not the same as that on second reading. The minister can very well deliver his speech on second reading, but we would not have the opportunity to ask questions or obtain information while, at the resolution stage, we have, according to the procedure, that opportunity.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Indeed, at the resolution stage, we have, according to procedure, that opportunity and the minister will admit that being in a rather remote corner, I will have fewer opportunities to obtain some information on second reading than at this stage.
Now, I am wondering if the minister could not do it now.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I can answer some questions asked by the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) and also by a few other hon. members.
In the first place, the hon. member for Lapointe asked if French immigration had increased since my trip to France several months ago. As for statistics, comparison of the first four months of 1967 with the same period in 1966, there were 962 French immigrants during the first four months in 1966, and 1,726 French immigrants in 1967.
Now, he has asked many questions of a statistical nature which I am unable to
May 25. 1967



answer, such as where are all those people located? And that, I do not know.


Gilles Grégoire: That is your general answer.


Jean Marchand: Generally, French immigrants get more easily established in Quebec than in other provinces, but this does not mean that the majority choose to remain in Quebec. Rather, more of those French immigrants remain in Quebec, as compared to immigrants whose native tongue is not French.
The hon. member for Lapointe wanted to know why we are asking for that increase from $12 to $20 million. First of all, the house is aware that this fund is used for loans and not gifts, which means that the money loaned to immigrants is usually paid back within a period of 24 months.
But over the last few years immigration has increased tremendously, it has gone up from 75,000 people in 1962 to almost 200,000 this year and, according to available statistics, there will probably be an increase of 20 to 25 per cent this year, which means that nearly
250,000	immigrants will probably come here.
Therefore, because there are more immigrants, a greater number of them are using our loan program devised to assist the immigrant and his family with their transportation expenses. At the present time, over $10 million are tied up in loans which will, of course, be paid back to the government. But if we do not increase the amount in the fund from $12 to $20 million, within a few weeks, and possibly within a week, we will run short of money to make loans to immigrants who want to come to Canada under the accepted principles.
That is the only explanation, there is no other. It is not in view of a future policy, it is simply to continue the present program.
There is no doubt-and I think that the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) understood it-that it is a very special amendment, that there is no question of reshaping government policy in the field of help to immigrants.
It is simply a question of enabling us now, before the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate makes its report, to continue our assistance to the immigrants coming to Canada under the program already adopted by the government and which has been operative for more than 15 years. I think it was implemented first in 1951 and has been amended a few times.
But he asked whether our intention was to implement the principles laid down in the white paper. I can assure the hon. member
Immigration Act
for Carleton that our intention is to extend this program to all countries of the world.
As he mentioned, these loans were extended only to immigrants from certain countries of Europe. Last year, it was extended to the people from the Caribbean and, as soon as we have the money, or the available funds and the facilities, we intend to extend it to all immigrants from any part of the world.
I make here a formal statement about it and I hope he will be satisfied; we are proceeding along that line, and I hope we will achieve our objective as early as possible.
From our estimates, if the amount is increased from $12 million to $20 million, we will have enough money to extend the program to any country, regardless of the immigrants' origin.
Obviously, one can say it is not a new policy; an opportunity to discuss it further will be provided when the joint committee report is submitted to the house. Then, we shall be in a position to discuss this angle and I shall be quite willing to do so. At present, however, if for one reason or another, the house refuses to increase this amount, it would not mean the end of Canada, of course, not even the end of our immigration policy, but it would mean that a certain number of immigrants would be denied the help offered to them.
Now, I do not want to take the house by surprise, but I intend to propose an amendment to the regulations about loans to immigrants.
This amendment deals with the interest rate. At present, these loans are granted to immigrants without interest. I do not think this is a good policy, and I want to explain why. At any rate, I do not believe that charging interest would reduce the number of immigrants to Canada. I do not believe the interest would be high enough for that. But, at the present time, we realize that more and more people take advantage of the plan, but there is nothing to show that they really need the money we lend them.
In other words, some immigrants with money, who could afEord to settle in Canada on their own, might take advantage of the plan, keep their own money and perhaps invest it at 6, 7 or 8 per cent interest, while obtaining from us interest-free loans.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that it is reasonable for us to charge interest-I intend to suggest a rate of 6 per cent-first of all, to encourage early repayment to the government and, in the second place, to limit the loans as

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
much as possible to the immigrants who need them. I do not believe it would be fair to the Canadian taxpayers that an immigrant, having money, should come here with the help of an interest-free loan from us, which he could repay over a 24-month period. Therefore I think this is normal.
On the other hand, when we consider the federal aid-to-immigrants policy, Mr. Chairman, I would prefer a more generous set-up. That is if, at a given time, immigrants were needed and if some of them were really in financial straits it might be better then to give them money outright rather than to make loans to them.
At the outset, when the program was established some four per cent of the immigrants took advantage of our loan program. Today, that proportion has reached 25 per cent and when the scheme will become better known, every immigrant will probably try to obtain money from the government, which will add up to fabulous sums.
I therefore advise the house that I intend to ask the cabinet to allow a 6 per cent interest to be charged on those loans.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, some matters that are not at all relevant to the bill now before us have been brought up. As for the statement repeated here this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), we have heard here and there throughout Canada, that if the number of Canadian citizens of that ilk and with the same attitude was to increase somewhat, the situation in this country would become absolutely intolerable and would bring about, in my opinion, extremely serious consequences. If I were convinced that most members of this house shared the views of the hon. member for York-Humber, I would prefer not to stay here.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I believe that the policy set forth in the white paper, whether the hon. member for York-Humber likes it or not, is the policy of the government. It is the policy approved by the cabinet, it is the policy which has been set forth and with which the members are acquainted, and if the hon. member for York-Humber disagrees basically with that part, he knows what to do and how to behave. Insofar as we are concerned, it is government policy.
The hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire)-and this concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman-referred to a statement made by myself. As I said earlier, he was extremely nice-it is the kind of friendliness that can

lead us in the most terrible traps-but at any rate, he indicated that I had expressed some fear in Quebec city about those agreements with France.
Indeed, the contrary is true. And the newspapers were very honest in that regard. 1 said and repeated that I approved of Quebec signing agreements, especially of a cultural nature, with France; in short, that it was a good thing which should be continued. Only, I mentioned, that is true and I repeat it, that I am against imperialism; in other words, I disapprove of another country using Canada or part of Canada to achieve its own ends; and what is true of Great Britain, of the United States, is also true of France. I feel that Canada must be its own master. I did not attack the agreements signed between Quebec and France; on the contrary, I fully agree. Only, I feel that if the provinces are going to sign agreements right and left with other governments, care must be taken to safeguard that country which is even closer than France to French Canadians, that country which bears the name of Canada and which is our country.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, would the minister answer a question?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Gilles Grégoire: While it was reported in the press that the minister had stated in Quebec City that those agreements should not lead to imperialistic designs by France, the minister says that he made no such statement. So, does the minister mean that he did not say that, contrary to what was reported by the press?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I have just mentioned what I had said, namely that I was in favour of those agreements. I simply said that when concluding such agreements, since that can be done by any province, care must be taken to make sure that countries do not use those instruments to enslave Canada, because France, like other countries, has interests. We must not imagine that. France, like the United States, has its own interests.


Gilles Grégoire: Are those interests imperialistic designs towards Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think I have made my position clear. I do not intend to open a debate on this matter. The proposed resolution which is before the house is very simple, and I hope that the house will let us go on to the second reading of the bill, so
May 25, 1967

that immigrants will be not deprived needlessly of the help we can give them.


Mr. Haidasz:: Mr. Chairman, I agreed with the acting house leader to defer the remarks I had intended to make on the resolution but I was hoping that in the course of his explanation the minister would give us fuller information concerning the assisted passage loans which are in effect at the present time.
I should like to know the number of loans made according to country of origin. I should also like the minister to tell us whether any incentives are offered to these immigrants to settle in parts of Canada such as the prairie provinces and the Canadian north where labour is needed.


Jean Marchand: I do not have all the details for which the hon. member is asking.

Between 1962 and 1966, the number of immigrants increased from 74,000 to 194,000. In 1962, 3,451 people, or 4.5 per cent of the total number of 74,000 immigrants, benefited from our assistance program. In 1965, out of 194,000, 47,000 that is 25 per cent, took advantage of our plan. Now, I have all the in-between percentages, that is 4, 10, 15, 19 and 25 per cent, that is the number of immigrants who availed themselves of it.
Now, I do not have them by country of origin, but I can certainly get them. About
250,000	immigrants availed themselves of that plan since its inception.
Among those 250,000 immigrants, 7,200 have not yet reimbursed their loans that is they have overrun the three-year period. Bad loans, about 8 per cent, were lost, because either the immigrant did not stay in Canada or he became ill, or he was deported. It is less than 1 per cent, that is 0.8 of 1 per cent which were lost; the rest were recovered. On the whole, I think that the immigrants have kept their word and their commitments and they have reimbursed the Canadian government. As to the details, namely what immigrants of what country obtained loans, I do not have them. I shall try to get them and as soon as I do, I shall send them to the hon. member.


Reynold Rapp: Mr. Chairman, numbers of Canadian citizens have sponsored immigrants from other countries and on occasions these applications have been refused without any
Immigration Act
reason being given. The applicant has not been told whether the refusal was based on security considerations or health reasons, for example.
A number of my constituents have asked me to bring this matter to the attention of the house and to suggest that if this information were given to the applicant or to his sponsor much of the dissatisfaction felt at present with the immigration laws might be removed.


Jean Marchand: We had a long discussion in the house on that subject when we debated the bill to set up a board of appeal. The hon. member for Carleton made quite a case, I recall. I do not believe I have any answers to give other than those which were given at that time. There are certainly situations where it is impossible to give reasons, where it would not be healthy to do so, not only for the government but for the immigrant himself. We have discussed this subject at length. Maybe I could find the appropriate reference in Hansard and draw it to the hon. member's attention.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, this resolution has interested me and I am prompted to ask a few questions of the minister. I notice it asks parliament to provide an additional $8 million, increasing from $12 million to $20 million the present limit on the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time that may be made to enable the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to make loans to immigrants to assist them with the expenses of their transportation to Canada.
Are any other expenses included when these loans are made? Can immigrants use this money for subsistence purposes until they become self-supporting? What security is given by the immigrants to guarantee the return of the money lent? To whom do borrowers report from time to time? What is the rate of repayment and where is repayment made? Immigrants are sometimes difficult to locate in a country which is almost 4,000 miles broad. Does an immigrant who borrows money under this scheme sign a promissory note and, if so, are co-signers required? What is the duration of the loan? Does the department fix the repayment period so that it knows the money will be promptly repaid?
The minister has told us he will recommend an interest rate of 6 per cent. Canadian citizens generally have to pay this rate at the present time so I think it is a privilege for immigrants to be able to borrow at 6 per cent. I do not say I am against this; I am glad to

May 25, 1967
Immigration Act
see that interest is being charged. I notice that the minister gives figures going back to 1962, which suggests that 1962 is the year in which the plan was first introduced. What losses have the Canadian people sustained as a result of non-payment of these debts or failure to honour contracts entered into with the government?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would also remind the minister that I wrote his department early in the spring regarding a prospective immigrant from Trinidad who has a wife and one child. He has been guaranteed a job upon arrival by the United Church, and they wanted him in western Canada by May 1. After several letters back and forth between the department and myself we finally got the examining team in Trinidad to go to his place of residence to determine his fitness and that of his family to enter Canada. Last week I received a letter saying he probably will not be able to enter Canada until about the middle of June.
This man is not asking for a loan. All he asks is to be admitted to Canada to work for the United Church in a pastoral charge arranged for him on the prairies. I am informed that he will earn roughly $100 a week. He is self-supporting and has other assets besides an assured job. I think the department is procrastinating, feeding out the red tape very slowly. He could probably have been here by mid-May but now will not arrive until mid-June. He is a worthy case and I know he will be a credit to Canada. I hope the minister will expedite matters in his regard.


Jean Marchand: So far as this case is concerned, if the hon. member will give me the name I shall look into it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: I will give the minister, the name.


Jean Marchand: With regard to the hon. member's other questions, I think I answered a few of them in French. The total amount of loans made since the start of the plan in 1951 is $41 million and the total amount written off, money we have lost, is $330,000, or .8 per cent. The reasons for the write-offs and the percentages are as follows: out of country, 55 per cent-immigrants who came here and rushed to the United States-cannot be located, 26 per cent; chronically ill, 7 per cent; deported, 4 per cent; deceased, 3 per cent; bankrupt, 2 per cent; mentally ill, 1 per cent; permanently disabled, 1 per cent, and repatriated, one half per cent. For a 15 year program this is not at all bad.

Usually these loans are repaid on a 24-month basis, but if there are good reasons to do so the department can prolong the period or shorten it to suit an immigrant. The money can be repaid directly to the department or through deductions from the pay of immigrants. An immigrant must sign a document committing himself to repay the government the full amount. I do not know if this answers all the hon. member's questions but I think it covers his main questions.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the rules and regulations of the house as they apply to the resolution stage of debate, but it has been suggested to me that if I were to rise now, and were given unanimous consent, I could conclude my remarks.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Under standing order 61-A which applies to resolutions preceding money bills, and pursuant to a ruling made by Mr. Deputy Speaker Lamoureux on April 27, 1965, no member of the committee while this particular stage of debate is taking place can speak for more than 20 minutes. According to the ruling a member may speak more than once but the total time he can speak is 20 minutes. On the other hand, the committee is master of its own rules and if it wishes to give extra time by unanimous consent to the hon. member for York-Humber, then of course he would be permitted to speak. If we are going to adhere closely to the rules, the hon. member for York-Humber has had all the time that is allotted to him under standing order 61-A. Does the committee give unanimous consent to permit the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the committee for their acquiescence in this regard and I will not trespass too long. I was almost at the conclusion of my remarks.
I would point out that in 1759 at the time of the fall of Quebec there were 60,000 French speaking people in North America and
1,500,000	English speaking residents. At the first Canadian census after confederation there were 3,485,761 persons in the four provinces, of whom 1,082,940 were of French origin or 31.0 per cent of the whole. The Canadian census of 1881 showed a total population of 4,324,810, of whom 1,298,929 were listed as French, the proportion being 30 per cent.
The Prime Minister, speaking in Calgary just a few weeks ago, stated that 30 per cent of Canada's population of 20 million souls
May 25, 1967

speak French, which works out to six million persons. I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration again-I have already asked him but he did not answer-how great is the imbalance? It was 31 per cent in 1871. It was 30 per cent in 1881, and the Prime Minister speaking in Calgary in 1967 says the percentage is 30 per cent even now. How great is the imbalance? When do we start to correct it? Will an excess of babies of one particular tongue help to reduce the spread, or must the whole matter be corrected by immigration? Perhaps we shall never know, because I quote again from the letter I have already mentioned:
-a question must not "seek information about matters which are in their nature secret..
I ask this question because I do not believe there should be a hard and fixed percentage set with regard to any tongue or section of the population. If someone is going to state that the imbalance should stand at 30 per cent what is going to happen if the nonFrench element rises higher than 70 per cent? What is going to happen if the French element rises higher than 30 per cent? I say there should not be any figure even thought of in this regard and that immigrants should be allowed to go where they can find positions and jobs and can be self-supporting.
I like the statement of the Minister of Justice which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of March 14. In addressing the Canadian Club of Montreal on March 13 he said:
French Canadians must accept the test of competition with the other people in Canada-in trade and commerce, in invention and discovery and in politics in Ottawa. The rules of the game must be the same for all.
Spoken like a man, and spoken like an intelligent man and one who knows the situation quite well.
In addition, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration spoke in Toronto on March 2 at Hart House and was reported in the Toronto Star of March 3 as follows:
The only thing Quebec can do, Marchand said, "is accept things as they are-not as we would want them to be-there is no ideal country, no ideal constitution . .."
Many of Quebec's resentments should be directed against North America, but "instead, they think they have to resent you," Marchand told the students.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I approve 100 per cent of these two statements by these two ministers. I should like to see the policies which they enunciated in 27053-37
Immigration Act
their addresses carried out instead of this policy of correcting the so-called imbalance. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres- formerly it was Three Rivers but of course the name was changed to Trois-Rivieres in the interest of national unity-made some personal comments with regard to myself, as has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I should like to point out that I sat in this chamber one evening and watched one member of the cabinet and a parliamentary secretary vote against a government bill in committee of the whole. I did not hear any uproar about the action taken by those two gentlemen. I admired them for having the strength of their convictions and for having voted against that bill. Look at the uproar which developed when the President of the Privy Council made a speech in Toronto. He did not vote against a government bill. One of the gentlemen who opposed the government bill later was made a cabinet minister. The expression of opinion one receives from members of the Liberal party evidently depends on what language one speaks.
I admire the President of the Privy Council for the statement he made. I could not criticize him for having expressed his own opinions. I do not criticize the cabinet minister nor the then parliamentary secretary for having voted against a government bill. I believe the majority opinion of the House of Commons and not a majority engendered by some party should be the law of the land. We should have a free expression of opinion from the best minds in Canada and a majority of the House of Commons is the closest approach to this situation we could have.
I have four questions I should like to pose to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I hope he will endeavour to answer them. First, how great is this imbalance in the minds of members of the cabinet? I have quoted the figures for 1871 and 1881 and have referred to the Prime Minister's address in Calgary in 1967. Second, what date is set by the cabinet for a proper balance between the French speaking and English speaking elements as mentioned in paragraph 34? Third, how much of this loan money is likely to be advanced to people who may be diverted east of the Ottawa river, according to the white paper and the statements published in multigraph form by the minister himself?
The fourth and final question is the following: Would it not be best to let immigration seek its own level and not establish a hard

May 25. 1967
Immigration Act
and fast rule between any two tongues, because how will you enforce it if the immigrants and the people of Canada do not observe it but rather follow their own desires and live where they wish to live and speak as they wish to speak?


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question?

I shall give the statistics in French. Is the hon. member aware of the fact that 96.3 per cent of the immigrants who came to Canada between 1939 and 1965 came from countries whose mother tongue was other than French and that most of them assimilated with the English culture?


Mr. McKinley:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention a problem which we have in my riding inasmuch as the minister by means of this legislation is endeavouring to assist immigrants. I refer to a case involving a person from China who is trying to come to our area. The delay in this regard has not been wholly the fault of the department, because it was necessary that some of the regulations be met. I believe this has been done now. When the case began there were only two persons wishing to come to Canada. Now there are three in the family. If I give the minister the name, would he look into this matter to see whether this family may be able to arrive here before there are four?


Jean Marchand: The only thing I can say is that I shall be pleased to look into the case if the hon. member will give me the name of the person involved.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-118, to amend the Immigration Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to press the matter, but if it is agreeable to the house I would ask that it be read a second time now.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, in view of the simplicity of the bill and the fact that it only changes one figure we have no objection whatever to the bill being brought forward for second reading at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Are there copies of the bill available?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that some copies of the bill are available.
Mr. Marchand thereupon moved the second reading of the bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have already made a statement in this regard it is not my intention to do so at this time.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he would answer the questions I posed during the resolution stage?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that this question of balance and imbalance is a very complicated problem. I do not believe I should enter into that debate at this stage. However, whenever we discuss the report of the committee on Indian affairs, human rights and citizenship and immigration I will be ready to discuss this policy with the hon. member and try to shed some light on it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, and reported.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Richard Albert Bell: By leave, now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean Marchand: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD ACT


Robert Henry Winters: the second reading of Bill No. C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the grain growers of western Canada and their marketing agency, the Canadian Wheat Board, have made such a great contribution to the national economy and their methods of marketing are so highly and widely accepted in international grain trading circles as well as domestically that in this government's opinion the time has come to give more permanence to the legislation governing the operations of the wheat board. The board is now a permanent part of the
May 25, 1967

Canadian scene and the grain growers of the west wish it to be considered as such. I am therefore pleased to be able to bring to the attention of the house amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. It is only a few months since the responsibility to parliament for the wheat board was assigned to me, but I am proud to be associated with this remarkable Canadian activity and would like to take this first opportunity to say a few words about it.
During the past few years the production and marketing of wheat have been at levels unprecedented in our history. During this period we have had the highest levels of production, exports, wheat prices and farm income ever recorded in the history of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The principal function of the Canadian Wheat Board is, of course, to sell the wheat, oats and barley delivered by western Canadian grain producers at the best possible prices. The Canadian Wheat Board has carried out its duties in a most efficient and successful manner. Equally, the government of the day has done everything in its power to assist the board in selling as large a volume of wheat as possible.
Let me review briefly the production and marketing performance of recent years. In the past four crop years wheat production has exceeded 2.8 billion bushels. This figure is 500 million bushels more than total wheat output in any other four-year period. Thus, we have had the equivalent of an extra crop to market in the past four years.
Demand in world markets has improved in recent years but, none the less, it has been a challenging task to market the tremendous quantities of wheat that were produced. I can remember vividly that when I was in the government prior to 1957, an export total in excess of 300 million bushels was considered a very good year indeed. In contrast, we have recently had two crop years with exports approaching 600 million bushels. The average for the past three years has been 525 million bushels compared with the average of 350 million bushels in the previous three years. In achieving these record wheat exports very heavy commitments were assumed but each challenge was met and Canada did not default on a single contract.
It should be emphasized that this large export movement was not at the expense of other grains. In 1965-66, overseas shipments of oats and barley were also higher than in 27053-37J

Canadian Wheat Board Act the previous year. In addition, the full requirement of our domestic market for feed grains was met.
On behalf of the government I should like to pay tribute to the grain producers, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners, the railways, the elevator companies, the brokers, the shippers and all the other organizations and individuals who did so much to make this achievement possible.
In reviewing the recent record of wheat marketing, it is of value to examine the various components which contribute to the very impressive total.
Nearly half of Canada's wheat and flour exports are now shipped to Sino-Soviet countries, to most of whom it is necessary to extend credit in order to do business. The policy of selling wheat on government assisted credit terms was implemented 15 years ago when 5.5 million bushels of wheat were sold to Yugoslavia under section 21 of the Export Credits Insurance Act. Since that time Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Mainland China and East Germany have purchased large quantities of Canadian wheat on credit terms. Taken together, these countries represent a market for over 20 per cent of our total exports. In recent years, credit sales have been confined to countries prepared to enter into long-term purchase and supply agreements and, with the exception of the U.S.S.R., all countries entering into such agreements have availed themselves of Canadian government credit facilities under either the Export Credits Insurance Act or the Canadian Wheat Board Act. The government has made these exports possible by assuming credit risks which today amount to more than $500 million compared with $200 million in 1962.
The Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement, which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) negotiated 11 years ago, was the first long-term agreement with a Sino-Soviet country involving the purchase and supply of Canadian wheat. The U.S.S.R. has been by far the largest purchaser of Canadian wheat under long-term arrangements. Mainland China is the second largest purchaser of Canadian wheat under long-term arrangements. Many of the long-term wheat agreement negotiators have been conducted concurrently with or as part of trade agreement negotiations. Wheat has, therefore, made its contribution to the broadening of trade in other commodities.
57G
May 25. 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act
In 1966 I visited the U.S.S.R. and a number of eastern European countries-Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslovia, Bulgaria, Hungary- and returned encouraged by prospects for continuation of substantial sales to this area for many years to come.
In recent years the publicity attracted by the large quantities of grain we have sold to Sino-Soviet block countries has tended to overshadow the importance we attach to purchases made by our traditional markets such as Britain, Japan, West Germany, Italy, Belgium and Venezuela. Canada sells wheat and flour to almost 100 countries, and I can assure the house that during the recent period of strong demand the needs of our traditional customers, both large and small, were taken into account before other commitments were undertaken.
There is one development in wheat marketing in Canada, which has certainly not received the attention I think it merits. I refer to our food aid program. The allocation of funds for food aid in the form of wheat and flour has increased substantially in the last few years, rising from about $4.5 million in the 1962-63 fiscal year to an exceptional level of about $100 million in the last fiscal year, reflecting Canada's contribution to meeting emergency needs in India. In the years ahead Canada will continue to be a major supplier of food aid. Canadians can take great pride in the fact that, on a per capita basis, we are now as large a contributor of wheat and flour aid as any country in the world.
Hon. members are aware that western grain producers attach the greatest importance to international co-operation in grain marketing. The Canadian government supported by representatives of western farm organizations has taken the lead in seeking acceptable international agreements for wheat embodied in the successive international wheat agreements. We have again played a central role in the successful negotiations of the key elements of a new three year agreement providing a significantly higher price range for wheat, of which I was pleased to inform the house on May 15. This news was significant not only to those directly involved in the production of wheat but to all Canadians because of the importance of wheat exports to our whole economy.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I stated previously, the newly agreed price range involves a 21-cent increase in both the minimum and the maximum price for No. 1 Northern over the current I.W.A.

price range which expires on July 31. The new minimum for No. 1 Northern is $1.95J in store the Lakehead and $2.03J f.o.b. Vancouver. The price range is 40 cents U.S. or approximately 43 cents Canadian, making the new maximums $2,384 in store the Lakehead and $2.46J f.o.b. Vancouver. In addition to increased minimum and maximum prices the new agreement provides for a considerable strengthening of the minimum price systems, representing a significant improvement over the international wheat agreement.
In contrast to the I.W.A. which specified a minimum and a maximum price for only No. 1 Northern, the new price schedule identifies ten major grades of wheat with agreed minimum and maximum prices. These wheats include No. 1 and No. 3 Northern from Canada, four U.S. grades of wheat and one each from Australia, Argentina, the E.E.C. and Sweden. This new schedule provides greater assurance of equivalent obligations by all exporting countries in complying with the objective of price stability and the observance of minimum prices.
The difficulties involved in reaching agreement on the price relationships between these grades proved insoluble throughout the history of the international wheat agreements. They have been overcome, however, in this agreement by establishing substantially strengthened price consultative procedures. I should emphasize that each grade of wheat may compete freely within the price range. The scheduled minimum prices for the various types of wheat can only be modified by agreement.
In addition to the improved price schedules, the establishment of a multilateral food aid program represents an unprecedented advance in assuring continuing supplies of wheat, flour and other grains for needy countries and providing at the same time a more equitable sharing of this cost among developed countries, both those exporting and importing grains. The total annual program agreed to by the 17 countries involved in this stage of the negotiation was 4.5 million metric tons of wheat and/or coarse grains suitable for human consumption. Canada's contribution of one-half million tons represents 11 per cent of the total and is second only to the United States which is providing 42 per cent of the program.
The agreement reached in Geneva was negotiated by the major grain trading countries participating in the Kennedy round, this
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act
is, 11 countries plus the E.E.C. The 11 countries are Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Australia, Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Argentina, Sweden and Finland. Negotiations are now being directed toward bringing other countries interested in trade in wheat, both GATT and non-GATT members, into this agreement and to set up the machinery to bring the agreement into effect as soon as possible.
The major exporters and importers agreed in Geneva to work diligently for the early completion of negotiations which will broaden the agreement reached there to include all countries interested in trade in wheat. It is anticipated, of course, that it will take a little time to tie up all the ends of this agreement and it may not become operative until early next year. Hon. members will recall that the price provisions of the present international wheat agreement expire July 31. On the matter of price, it is understood in trade terms that this means the new price range which I have reported to the house will be observed in the months ahead until the new agreement becomes fully effective. Canadian selling prices are currently about 17 cents above the new agreed minimum prices. It has been agreed by Kennedy round signatories that nothing in the subsequent negotiations shall prejudice the price and food aid commitments entered into by them.
The successful outcome of these negotiations within the Kennedy round was due in no small measure to the continuing presence and advice of the advisory committee to the wheat board and the participation of Canadian Wheat Board officials as part of the Canadian delegation in Geneva.
Following the harvest of the largest wheat crop in Canadian history in 1966 wheat supplies in Canada totalled almost 1.3 billion bushels, a new record. It is obvious that we must continue to strive for the largest possible volume of exports. It seems clear that in the years ahead there will be an increasing demand for Canadian wheat. This is not to say that there will not be some years when a reduction in demand could create marketing problems. Wheat selling is a highly competitive business and I would not want to create the impression that there will be no problems in marketing Canadian wheat. Each year presents a different marketing situation. The Canadian Wheat Board has served the western producer well in the past and I know hon. members will share my view that the board will be equal to challenges as they develop in the coming years.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I wish to return to the main purpose for seeking amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. As the act now stands its administrative powers as set forth in sections 23, 24 and 34 will expire August 1, 1967. It has been customary to renew them for periods of five years. It is now decided to ask parliament to make the board's powers permanent. It has become the practice of the board to enter into agreements for the supply of grain over extended periods of time and, as I have already mentioned, nearly one-half of our exports of wheat and flour are now marketed under long-term arrangements of this type. These buyers naturally expect the wheat board's powers to cover the full period of these longterm agreements, and making them permanent meets this point as well as recognizing the de facto situation of the industry and its selling agency. This proposed amendment will, therefore, formally recognize what has been apparent to producers and buyers alike for many years and will, I believe, give effect to their wishes which in many instances have been expressed.
Accordingly I recommend the adoption of these simple amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the principal one being to extend the powers of the board, which would otherwise expire. The first amendment specifies that the governor in council shall designate the minister responsible to parliament for the operations of the board. In the present act the minister is specifically designated as the Minister of Agriculture. This amendment will provide more flexibility in that respect. Section 23 of the present Canadian Wheat Board Act provides that the provisions of part II of the act will be repealed on and after the 1st day of August, 1967. Section 34 of the act provides that the provisions of part IV will also be repealed on and after the 1st day of August, 1967. The repeal of these sections places the powers of the board on a permanent basis. There is also an amendment to section 24 as a consequence of the repealing of sections 23 and 34. The schedule of mills and feed warehouses mentioned in section 45 is also being revised to bring it up to date.


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first occasion upon which the minister has had the opportunity of dealing in the house with the Canadian Wheat Board, may I offer him our congratulations on the pleasant task he has assumed in working with the members of the board. I am sure he will find that they are not only
May 25. 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act
He then goes on to suggest that Canada is going to have some difficulty in meeting her share of world wheat requirements.
During the past few months speeches have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) suggesting that before long all of the food requirements of this country will be produced by a decreasing percentage of the Canadian population. I think the figure both ministers quoted was 5 per cent. I am not prepared to quarrel with that figure; it may well be correct, depending on the population of the country. But I do want to emphasize that this does not necessarily mean that we are going to have fewer farmers. Indeed, as I said earlier, I think that if we are to take full advantage of our production potential we must get away from the idea that the way to increase productivity is through the use of absentee or corporate farmers. This type of farmer, though he may be able to show the best return on his investment, is not the type of farmer who is going to produce the most food for the world. Attention must be paid to the farmer who knows the land best and who can best increase the productivity of a given area.
This concept involves many things. First of all, there is need for legislation to ensure that young people are given a start in farming, and at the present time there is not even a remote possibility of this. What happens is that when an older farmer retires the land is almost invariably bought by someone else who already has a large establishment in operation. Some attention must be given to the need to ensure that the moderate-size farm, the sort of family farm that the farm organizations have been talking about for the last number of years, is given some chance of survival.
Some changes in the quota system will also be required. The type of quota system now existing is of some advantage to larger farms but does not give small farms of 400 to 600 acres the advantage they should have. I would not recommend the use of the type of quota system which was adopted yesterday in admitting people to the House of Commons. What is required is a type of system which will slightly improve the opportunities of the small farmer. I am convinced that it is only the person who works very closely with the soil, who understands its capabilities and maximizes his opportunities for production, who can assist this country and the world in 
meeting the needs with which we will be faced in the next 20 years.
I should like to make one suggestion to the minister which is based on experience in the United States. When that country's administration attempted to limit production it found out that the United States farmer was ingenious enough to be able to overcome all the restrictions imposed upon him and increase his production. Perhaps this is one way to get maximum production, Mr. Speaker-by imposing limitations. I think this gives an indication of the ability of the farmer to increase his production despite limitations which are imposed upon him.
There must also be better utilization of land resources as well as of human and financial resources. I think of research into new varieties of coarse grains, for example. It seems to me there should be a shifting of the available acreage from the growing of coarse grains to wheat production, as well as an improvement in the variety of coarse grains. I understand that at the present time some of the research stations are developing a feed grain that can produce up to 200 bushels an acre. This sort of procedure will enable us to remove many acres which are suited to wheat growing from the production of coarse grain. We shall be able to produce many bushels of feed grain to meet the increasing future demand in this country for feed grains.
[DOT] (5;3Q p,m.)
We must have improvements in transportation and harbour facilities and we must improve the methods of getting grain from the farm on to the ships. The committee on agriculture studied this question intensively this past spring and recommended improvements. I hope the government will pay attention to those recommendations which may improve some of the problems plaguing transportation.
If proper steps are taken to meet the anticipated wheat demand in the years to come the government will be rewarded by the farmers who play an important part in the economy of our country. More than once in the last few years the prairie farmers have saved the government from difficult balance of payments situations. That should be remembered. The increased grain marketing have had a beneficial result in eastern Canada, because as a result of increased marketings and improved prices the farmers were able to improve production methods and to buy fertilizers and machines for their operations. Canada has benefited greatly by the increased wheat
May 25, 1967

sales of the last few years. The minister mentioned the figures, and we can all be proud of what the western farmers have done for the country.
We should not adopt the position taken by the Globe and Mail that the best way to reduce surpluses is to lower prices. That is what the Globe and Mail recommends that the dairy farmers should do, and it is so much outdated nonsense. Wheat surpluses did not disappear with lower prices. Nobody benefits from lower prices, and we must make sure that the people of this country realize that surpluses of wheat are not a burden but a blessing. The cost of storing surplus wheat is only a fraction of the cost which the housewife would have to meet if there was a shortage in this country. It should be remembered that the money spent to assist in the marketing of wheat benefits not so much the producer as the consumer of this country, and the consumer ought to be aware of that. Money spent in ensuring a stable supply of food is actually money saved.
In conclusion, I hope that by making this legislation permanent the government will not be precluded from examining it periodically. I looked at the schedule and saw that it listed out of date facts. It showed the number of feed mills, flour mills and seed cleaning plants in western Canada at present and in 1935. For instance, in 1935 there were 95 flour mills and today there are 90. In 1935 there were 54 seed cleaning plants and today there are 141. The number of feed mills and warehouses has increased from 107 in 1935 to 156 today. I hope the minister will make sure that long intervals do not elapse again before facts such as these are revised and brought up to date. When a schedule has not been revised for 22 years the facts it presents can be downright misleading. In the short time that the government will remain in power I hope it will re-examine this legislation periodically and keep it up to date.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They have another year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the member for the constituency in which the head office of the Canadian Wheat Board is located-and it is in Winnipeg North Centre- has the chance to speak on this legislation. I welcome the opportunity on behalf of the New Democratic party of supporting the amendments proposed in the bill.

Canadian Wheat Board Act
The Canadian Wheat Board Act is indeed one of the most successful pieces of legislation that the parliament of Canada has passed.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It was Conservative.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) said, it was passed as the culmination of the efforts of the prairie grain growers to find a satisfactory way of co-operative marketing. Though the Canadian Wheat Board operates under parliamentary legislation, the farmers of western Canada feel that the board is their own operation. Successive governments have tried to respect that fact. Sometimes we, who have seen both of the old parties in power, have thought that at times they have played partisan politics with it, but in the main the wheat board has stood as an effective and satisfactory way for the marketing of this country's grain products.
I see Your Honour on the edge of his seat. I shall not speak for more than another minute or so, so perhaps I might complete my remarks before you call it six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Like the hon. member for Provencher, I think it is quite appropriate for this legislation to be put on a permanent basis. We understand the reason for the five year renewal that has obtained these many years, but when, in point of fact, this legislation is looked at every year we believe it is appropriate that it should be put on a permanent basis.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
We also think it is quite in order to use the new language which is proposed for the designating of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and therefore we are ready to give our agreement to the passage of this legislation.
I should like to support the plea which the hon. member for Provencher made that we in this country should be concerned not, as in the past, about the problems created by surpluses but increasingly about the problems of a hungry world. We in Canada must look forward to making still further improvements in our methods of production and marketing so that we can meet the needs of hungry people.
As a member representing the constituency in which the Canadian Wheat Board has its
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act head office, I have much pleasure on behalf of this party in indicating our approval of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Kootenay West wish to ask a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: No. It was my intention to speak for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the question to be raised at the time of adjournment tonight is as follows: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), Industry-Northern Ontario-Possible Classification as Designated Area.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Winters for the second reading of Bill No. C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much of the time of the house on this bill, for it is not too long and aims mainly at making permanent the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board which are due to expire on August 13, 1967.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the house that our group agrees with the bill and that we will do our best to hasten its passage.
By the way, I should like to congratulate the new minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters). With a man of his calibre in charge of such a powerful tool as the Canadian Wheat Board, the western farmers are certainly in good hands.
Mr. Speaker, since we, in Quebec and eastern Canada, are not wheat producers and 

since this board does not interest us directly but only as a government agency, for the whole of Canada, for part of the country, we must congratulate those who are responsible for creating it.
I read with great interest about the beginnings of the Canadian Wheat Board and, last winter, I had the privilege of visiting all the western provinces with the members of the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development. At that time, I realized what could be done by such an agency to help the farmers secure what I consider practically fool-proof marketing.
But when we read about the origins of that body, we realize that those who fought to make it as powerful as it is today had to make many sacrifices and struggle for years.
This board is a lesson to us, in eastern Canada, for today it symbolizes the hopes of the western farmers. I believe that a similar board is needed in eastern Canada, particularly for milk products generally. I believe that such a board, under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is the only way to settle once and for all the marketing problems of eastern products.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that I envy the western farmers; on the contrary, I am very happy for them and I congratulate them. But our only hope is to make sure that the government help our farmers and establish such a board for eastern agricultural products, a board which would also come under federal legislation so that eastern farmers could enjoy the same benefits and produce and keep in step with the western provinces as far as the marketing of their products is concerned.
So we will support this bill and I am very happy that this board is to become the permanent and best tool for the farmers and grain producers.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, on rising to take part in the debate this evening I should first like to congratulate the minister on the measure that he has brought before the house. I believe it represents a milestone not only in the history of the agricultural industry of western Canada but also a milestone in the life of the minister himself, something which he will notice as time passes. It certainly is a milestone in the achievements of those who have had faith in organized agriculture in western Canada.
May 25, 1967	COMMONS
On this occasion I think of the time many years ago when I first became a member of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union, of which I am proud to say I am now a life member. I think of the work done by the delegate body of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, supporting legislation to establish the Canadian Wheat Board. I can remember repeated requests, year after year, at the annual meetings of both bodies, that this legislation be established on a permanent basis.
I repeat to the minister that his name will go down in the history of the agricultural industry of western Canada, and will be remembered because of the action that he has taken in making the legislation concerning the Canadian Wheat Board a permanent part of the statutes of Canada.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I was interested in the remarks he made this afternoon, and I congratulate him on the competency of his assistants. His speech was almost a masterpiece. I say this because there was just enough fiction interlaced in what he said to indicate a tiny effort to try to take a little more credit than might otherwise have been justified by a real appraisal of the facts, for the wheat sales to Communist China. I am not criticizing the minister because of that. I believe someone else may deal with this later on in the debate and it is not my intention to make an issue of it. At this time I believe it is well for this parliament to remember the days when Right Hon. R. B. Bennett was the prime minister of this country. At that time this legislation first found its place in the statute books of our country. I recall at that time that front benchers on the opposition side-one of whom I believe was Colonel Ralston-took strong exception to the Canadian Wheat Board legislation. I believe this minister of the crown is the only member from Toronto who has given his support to the Canadian Wheat Board legislation. Those of us from western Canada will not forget that either. The other day I said the minister was well on the way toward making a name for himself among those in western Canada with the announcement of the increase in the initial prices for wheat, oats and barley. At that time I would have liked to have seen him make this initial payment 25 cents instead of 21 cents per bushel.


Robert Henry Winters: Twenty cents a bushel.


Edward Nasserden: Instead of 20 cents a bushel. Had he done this, I believe he really would have clinched a spot for himself. He 27053-38j
DEBATES	583
Canadian Wheat Board Act really would not have been doing very much because under the international wheat agreement the floor prices and the ceiling prices have been raised by 21 cents. In recent years the prices have been far in excess of that increase and the minister today admitted that the minimum, I believe, has been 17 cents above the minimum price set. In any event, those of us from western Canada who believe in the orderly method of marketing grain will agree that the increase was a worth while one and one which will give encouragement to those who are engaged in the production of grain in western Canada.
There is one matter which I should like to mention. It was touched on slightly by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson), who gave a very concise and informative address today on this matter. He gave to the house and the country a great deal of material which should not be forgotten. The matter I should like to touch on is the need for larger initial quotas to give some additional encouragement to those who are engaged in the production of grain on smaller farms.
I realize there are difficulties in working out an equitable solution to this problem. The quota system has been designed to equalize the delivery opportunity for farmers in every part of the grain growing area. I believe, however, there still is some room for a somewhat larger initial quota. After the initial quota, there is the per bushel per acre quota and the larger farmer soon catches up on the deliveries. This is something which I shall leave with the minister in the hope that he will give consideration to it.
I should like to see the minister really entrench himself as the champion of the farmers of western Canada by making the Canadian Wheat Board the sole marketing agency not only for wheat, oats and barley but also for flax and rye. There are some people in western Canada who believe that rapeseed should also be brought under the board. Not everyone, however, believes that rapeseed should be brought under the board. In so far as flax and rye are concerned, they are under the quota today. The producer can sell only when the board allows him to sell and he has no assurance what the price will be for his grain at that time.
Those who produce flax and rye are under some measure of interference with their marketing by virtue of the quota which has been set up. I certainly am not suggesting that the quota should be abolished, but I
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act suggest a good step to take would be to bring these grains under the Canadian Wheat Board. I notice that over the years the farm organizations in western Canada have asked that this be done. In recent years, there has been some mention that perhaps they are not as desirous to have that happen as their resolutions indicate. From the discussions which have taken place during the past year in western Canada, and particularly in Sakatchewan, I am satisfied these organizations mean business and would really appreciate it if these two grains could be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board.
There are many other things which could be said on this subject, but I do not intend to pursue them. I have on many occasions pointed to the carelessness of the government during the past four years, but this is one occasion when I can point with a little bit of pride and congratulate the minister and the government on the action they are taking.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to compliment the minister for his very common sense statement. The minister is one person who, in my judgment and I think in the opinion of a good many members in this House of Commons, speaks in factual terms.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I must explain that, while I am a farmer, I would not pretend to know all that is to be known about grain marketing. My experience is simply as a result of an occasional visit to the prairies and from having resided with grain farmers on occasion. It also is as a result of my having listened to the evidence presented in the committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development.
Before proceeding to discuss the terms of the measure, I cannot resist making a reference to the farmers' march yesterday when there were 20,000 farmers on parliament hill, the largest demonstration by any group of producers in Canadian history, according to the information I have received from the pressmen with whom I have spoken. I should like to mention that they left their farms when there was very important work, such as plowing, discing, seeding, and things of that sort, to be done. They paid their own way. Nobody paid their expenses in coming here. They saved their nickels and dimes in order to spend a day in Ottawa to bring their complaints to the attention of the government. I trust they will receive a very sympathetic response from the government in the days ahead.

Before proceeding further I must say that I was astounded and amazed to hear the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) today ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) to thank the R.C.M.P. for the efficient way in which they pushed the Quebec farmers around. I was flabbergasted, you know.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, I think I should rise in defence of the hon. member for Lotbiniere. What he meant was that the R.C.M.P. deserve commendation for the outstanding manner in which they conducted themselves with such great restraint under provocation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has rather glossed over the facts. I am sure the members to my left and the members in the opposition heard the statement as I mentioned it.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I went out particularly to ask these boys where they came from, and they said they were Quebec farmers. I am not criticizing the R.C.M.P. for doing their duty as instructed, because that is what they must do. However, I must say I was surprised to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, and I was not the only one who was so surprised. All of us on this side were flabbergasted.


Robert Henry Winters: I think there must have been a misunderstanding.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We will read the record tomorrow and see exactly what the hon. member did say.


Mr. Boulanger:: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member realize that the farmers who were outside the house were Canadian farmers? There were farmers from Quebec and from Ontario, and they were all Canadian farmers.


Frank Howard: Does Mr. Sauve know that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. Let me remind hon. members that the bill before us relates to the Canadian Wheat Board Act. I am not without mixed feelings about the type of discussion that is now taking place, but in order to expedite the business of the house I am sure that these remarks about the demonstration and representations of yesterday on behalf of the farmers of Canada should be left to another occasion rather than during this consideration of amendments to the act.
May 25, 1967


Edward Nasserden: In respect of the question raised by the hon. member on the government side of the house, I can only wonder whether the government has realized that these were Canadian farmers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: May I
remind hon. members once again that we are not discussing that situation, and that remarks should be relevant to the bill now before the house. I request hon. members to confine their remarks to this subject.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I was so flabbergasted I could not help but make that remark. I agree with my hon. friend on the other side, that the many splendid producers who came from Quebec are indeed Canadian farmers. I trust we have heard the last about this issue during our consideration of this bill.
Let me congratulate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) for what I thought was a very excellent and constructive speech. He is a producer and contributes some of the wealth enjoyed by Canadians. I listened with great interest to his remarks because he speaks from experience as a large scale grain grower. I am naturally in support of the principle of this bill and, as other members have said, I believe this is a step in the right direction toward something which has been discussed for a good number of years. I congratulate the minister for introducing this bill.
At this time I want to refer to one or two matters mentioned by the committee which considered the reports of the Canadian Wheat Board on which apparently this bill was based. Some of these recommendations were referred to by the hon. member for Provencher and other speakers who sit in the Progressive Conservative benches. At page 8 of the report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development I find under the heading "Jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board" the following statement:
Evidence suggested that the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board should be extended so as to allow the board to handle the marketing of rye, flax and rapeseed. This proposition would appear to have a general support throughout the west. The Canadian Wheat Board, when it appeared before the committee pointed out that if the board were to assume marketing responsibility for rye, flax and rapeseed an amendment to the Canadian Wheat Board Act would be required. The board also stated that if such an amendment were passed that it was confident that it could handle the added responsibility.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
I understand that on previous occasions there has been some doubt in this regard. The report then states:
Your committee understood, however, that a very different type of marketing operation would be necessary to handle the marketing of flax and rapeseed. If the marketing powers of the board were extended to cover flax and rapeseed it would, in effect, involve the establishment of a completely new operation within the board.
After due consideration of the representations made, the committee feels that an extension of the wheat board jurisdiction into this area could be beneficial for the producer.
The report then states in the final paragraph under this heading:
Your committee therefore recommends that legislation be introduced, after the usual procedures have been complied with, that would extend the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board so that it would be the sole Canadian marketing agency for rye, flax and rapeseed.
As I said before, while I am a farmer I cannot speak with any authority in respect of grain marketing. I did have the opportunity of listening to the wheat board representative and others who appeared before the committee, and I felt that this was very sound advice. I note I have some support from that hon. member who has recently been elevated to the position of chief whip of the Progressive Conservative party. I trust that further consideration will be given to this matter.
The hon. member for Provencher referred to the necessity of increasing the production of grains in Canada. The committee discussed this matter and the report makes some reference to it. I should like to refer to a portion of the report in the event that some hon. members have not read it and are not aware of what the committee had in mind in this regard.
At page 6 of the report under the heading "Canadian Wheat Board" I find the following:
Your committee must offer its congratulations to the chief commissioner and staff of the Canadian Wheat Board for the excellent job they are doing selling Canadian grains. The esteem in which witnesses appearing before the committee held the board could not but impress your committee.
In examining a crown corporation it would not be proper for a committee of this house to delve into matters of internal administration. Your committee feels, though, that the successes which the Canadian Wheat Board has been achieving can be traced directly to the administrative qualities found in the commissioners and staff.
Your committee as a result of its inquiries is of the opinion that the market for Canadian grain is continually growing. The problem in the future will possibly lie in whether Canada can produce enough grain to meet the market's needs. Experts
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act are of the opinion that the world wheat requirements will reach four billion bushels by 1980 and this will require quite a large increase in production. To meet its customers' requirements Canada will have to have an annual wheat production by 1980 of one billion bushels. The fear expressed is not that Canada will exceed this Bgure but rather that it might fail to do so.
Your committee thus concludes that leadership in the grain trade is of growing importance for if the figures and arguments put forward by the experts are reliable then an all out effort must be made. It is your committee's view that some of this leadership must come from the Canadian Wheat Board.
The committee also discussed the responsibility we have to under-developed nations and those who need our grain. I trust the minister is paying close attention to the necessity of increasing the production of grains in Canada if the Canadian people are to meet their responsibilities abroad. While the amendments before us represent a step in the right direction, I wonder whether the minister when he replies will explain the procedures which have to be followed in order to amend the act again at a later date to bring the other cereals mentioned in the report under the jurisdiction of the board so the Canadian Wheat Board will have the sole reponsibility for marketing.
In concluding my few brief remarks, and as I said before I am a farmer but not competent to speak with authority on this question, I should like to add my support to the support of those who have already spoken on the bill, and suggest that certain amendments will be required in the future if we are to meet adequately the needs of the Canadian producer and our responsibility to our overseas customers.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, as a member from a great agricultural district I want to add my congratulations to the minister for bringing forward this long awaited legislation. It might be appropriate at this time to ask the minister to use his influence with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to find out whether a change can be made in the Income Tax Act which will allow an option to farmers who borrow money on farm stored grain to declare this as income in the year they borrowed the money or in the year they pay it back as a result of disposing of the grain. I have received representations from quite a few farmers in my district who think that this is not unfair and is the only equitable way of handling the matter.
[Mr. Herridge.l

[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
During the last election campaign the Liberal challenger for my seat went about the country promising that his government would pay farmers for storing grain on their farms, which would perhaps make it unnecessary for them to borrow money on grain which they already owned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: However, delivery of the grain would have to be undertaken in a very short time. I do not think this is a very practical suggestion. I believe it would receive considerable opposition from the grain trade, and I think the administration of such a program would be difficult. At the same time, I would like to discourage this type of promise being made across the country and think I owe it to the small farmers in my district, who might have been misled by this type of promise, to ask the minister to clarify this issue for us. I do not know whether he has any intention of doing so, but I would be interested to know whether this matter has in fact been seriously considered.
I am sure the farmers are a little discouraged at the 21-cent increase in the price of wheat. They had been promised something in the nature of a two-price system, but hoped that increased sales of wheat on the international market would make this unnecessary. However, with a 21-cent increase in the price of wheat I am sure they are looking for some action in this regard.
In recent years there has been argument about whether the wheat board has been fully responsible for Canada's increased sales of wheat. I take some exception to the suggestion that they have. I give credit to the board for what they have done so far, but I do not think the sale of wheat abroad has reached the level which we might expect. In this regard it might be helpful if our export credit program was very much increased in respect of the underdeveloped countries. I understand this principle was instrumental in bringing about the first and very large sale to Red China. If the wheat board received full cooperation from the Minister of Finance on this matter, I am sure that the sale of wheat on the international market could be greatly expanded. Canada is very fortunate because I suppose we are still the largest owner of undeveloped land. We have on the farm, certainly on farms of western Canada, the potential for greatly increased production.
May 25, 1967

I think the government could provide financial assistance to the farmers in another way. For instance, it might be better, in respect of the potash which we are exporting, if preferred loans were made in order that the potash might be used on our own bleached-out soil. This type of financial assistance to the farmers would pay off in our national economy.
I was very pleased to hear the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson) make another plea for the family farm. Unless I am mistaken, it is the policy of this government that the family farm must go and that nothing but the large corporation outfits will operate in future. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think Canada will always need a large population based on the farm. The only way we can keep the family farm going, in view of the fact that there is a movement away from agriculture today, is by doing everything possible to encourage the small farmer to stay on the farm. I would go even further than that and say we should have many more small farms in this country.
I do not think financing is the bottle-neck. I think the price the farmer gets for his grain is one aspect of the problem. The expanded markets of the world are there if we go after them, and if we increased our sales in these markets it would solve much of the problem. I have every confidence that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) will pursue this matter. I do not want him to be shy in this regard. He is apparently doing a good job in his department. We would like to see cabinet solidarity at least in this field. If the minister can get together with the Minister of Finance and any other minister who can help expand Canada's markets and exports generally, we will be the first to congratulate him. As you can see tonight, Mr. Speaker, there is unanimity in this party. We are encouraging the forward-looking type of approach which we are apparently getting from this department. That is why I am perhaps stretching the patience of the Chair a little in suggesting that, surrounding the policy in respect of the wheat board, there are these other facets of marketing and price control which will assist the small farmer to stay on the farm. In this way we will be able to provide a shot in the arm for the whole Canadian economy.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Richard in the chair.
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Jean-Thomas Richard: Order.
House in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-106, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
On clause 1-Minister.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the minister wants to reply at this stage to some of the questions raised on second reading of the bill.


Robert Henry Winters: I would be glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. At the outset I wish to thank all hon. members for their participation in this debate and the very complimentary remarks that I take to be directed to the wheat board. I will see that they are passed on to the proper source. I share this high regard for the wheat board, and in the short time in which I have been associated with them that high regard has been enhanced. They have done a marvellous job of marketing and selling wheat in over 100 countries in the world and have left no stone unturned in seeking out opportunities to sell more wheat. Where the matter of credit is involved, as my hon. friend from Athabasca said, they are not at all shy in asking the government to extend the amount required.
I cannot think of a single instance where we have lost a sale because of lack of credit facilities. The first large sale to China was, as was quite properly said, negotiated by the wheat board under the previous government on the basis of large credit facilities made available under the Canadian Wheat Board Act.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
That pattern has been followed by a subsequent sale to China. In the other socialist countries in Europe the facilities for credit are being used, except in the case of Russia which continues to pay cash. Of course, we are very pleased about it.
The other important question has to do with the recommendation of the committee on agriculture relating to whether or not the important commodities of rye, flax and rape seed should be included under the provisions of this statute. This is a matter to which I have given considerable attention in the short time that I have been responsible for the wheat board. I have not concluded my consideration. The wheat board would find it quite a different sort of operation from the selling of wheat, oats and barley with respect to which Canada's position in the markets of the world is quite dominant, important, and over
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act the price structure of which we can exercise an influence and have some control. Rye, rape seed and flax are quite different. The role that Canada could play in these commodities is relatively insignificant in the markets of the world. We would not have the same opportunities to influence price or to help bring about orderly marketing. We would be more apt to be carried along by the price structure in the world rather than have the opportunity of playing a role in establishing it, which is a function that the wheat board now discharges very well. I have had a great many representations on both sides of this question by people who feel that here is one area in which they could use their own private initiative to good advantage, and many have done so, as hon. members of this house know so well.
I am naturally impressed by the recommendations of the committee on agriculture and I would like to give them full consideration. I think an important fact is that all of us have been deeply involved recently in the Kennedy round of tariff negotiations. The commissioners of the wheat board have attended regularly at Geneva and devoted all their energies and time to the sale and agreements for the future sale of wheat and, in a different area, to the sale of oats and barley. Moreover, the concentration has been and will be on wheat for some time to come until all the details of the current agreement are worked out and it becomes operative. So, it will be some time before I and those who are responsible for advising me can come to a definitive conclusion on this important matter. But I can tell all hon. members that this is very much on our minds and we will not lose sight of it.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I was quite pleased to hear at least one remark made by the minister, although I do not disagree with the other ones. I was pleased to hear that he has been reading the report of the committee on agriculture, and therefore I might conclude that it has raised in his mind the same problem that arises in mine, namely that the amendment which is before us in two parts is a very small, insignificant and uncontentious one. However, there were a number of things which the committee was able to learn about the operations of the wheat board and which were unknown to most of the members of the committee. I believe that if we are only going to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act once a year, some of the amendments to the act which have been recommended by the committee members should be included. The explanation of the first clause concerning the 
designation of a minister by the governor in council was made the subject of some recommendations in the committee. While I am sure there is a great deal of merit in making the person responsible for the wheat board the one who has the best knowledge of the wheat board, this appointment is subject to change, and rather unusual arrangements have had to be made at times in designating the minister responsible for the wheat board.
The minister made what appeared to me, and I think to the committee, a rather controversial point regarding what the Canadian Wheat Board can do about the problems of sale expansion and the obvious intention of the farmers to go into the production of oil seed crops as well. The fact is that we are annually doubling the previous year's production with no end in sight. However, the difficulty arises with the sales. As regards rape-seed, reports in the newspapers last year caused considerable consternation among the farmers. They indicated that the sale price of one particular shipment had gone up very rapidly and yet the same increase was not reflected in any other sales. When the committee investigated the matter, they found that this very large increase in the sale price of that particular shipment was an unusual circumstance which was not likely to be repeated. My assessment of the briefs that were presented with regard to this matter led me to believe that most of the farmers were of the opinion that the wheat board, in the marketing of grain in general not only of wheat, has some say in the selling price of that commodity because it has such a large amount for export purposes. The minister is perfectly right when he says that Canada is the leader in wheat sales in the world's markets.
An amendment made to the Canadian Wheat Board Act a few years ago placed oats and barley under the wheat board, although in a different category than wheat. It seems to me that this operation is rather confused when one realizes that the grain exchange does deal in futures for oats and barley which are not handled in exactly the same way as wheat. I think most of the farmers in western Canada agree that the operations of the wheat board with regard to the sale of oats and barley have been advantageous to the farmers and have placed Canada in a position in the world markets where we were able to provide facilities which have brought a certain amount of stability to the coarse grain field. I am sure most of the farmers agree
May 25, 1967	COMMONS
that probably the operation that will be undertaken by the wheat board with regard to rapeseed and other oil seeds will not be the same as that undertaken with regard to coarse grains or wheat but that the national marketing agency with its connections all across the world will be in a much better position to sell advantageously, as far as the farmer is concerned, the oil seed crops which have been produced in increasing amounts by the farmers in western Canada.
If the minister is of the opinion that the recommendations against bringing rapeseed under the act outweighed those in favour of it, I would say that I think these representations were mostly made by Mr. McNamara. He is very much opposed to bringing rapeseed under the board for the simple reason that this would involve a change in the policy of the board and of the sales agents across the world. There is no question that they would have to operate in a totally different manner since that commodity would only be a small part of the total sales. It is also true, as the minister said, that decisions of the wheat board may be subjected to undue influence by the major producers in the oil seed field.
I think it is fair to say that most of the members of the committee were not opposed to the operation which is now being undertaken by the grain exchange in the futures of oil seed. I noticed that in the last few days the price of silver on the stock market in Canada and the U.S. was only allowed to go up five cents a day. In London, on the other hand, the price of silver jumped up 14 or 15 cents in one day. I understand that there is a daily limit to any price increase of rapeseed which is part of our grain exchange strucutre. Therefore, I think the problem we used to face in the trading of futures on exchanges to some extent has been curtailed. If we are able to operate satisfactorily in terms of wheat, barley and oats, then I think we should be able to do the same with other seed products.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Stability in rapeseed production is very necessary to agriculture, and it will have a great effect in a number of ways. It used to be argued by those who represent, for instance, soybean interests and other oil seed producers in eastern Canada, that the government should not permit rapid expansion of the oil seed industry in the west. I think obviously because they would be affected by it. However, it is true that as the oil seed industry expands we will be in a much better position nationally to provide the oils that are
DEBATES	589
Canadian Wheat Board Act required to produce soap, margarine-particularly margarine-and other commodities.
It appears, Mr. Chairman, that if we are to protect both of these industries, then it would be of advantage if the national marketing agency in western Canada also had some control over the sale of the end products, as well as the preparation of sales estimates in the markets of the world to which the representatives of the wheat board pay close attention. It would then be possible to advise the farmers, as is the case with other commodities, how much they may expect to receive when they harvest their crop.
For this reason I think that, in bringing forward this bill to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the minister would be remiss if he did not refer it to the committee in order to consider the advisability of including these commodities. 1 do not think it is sufficient merely to listen to representations. The arguments used by the wheat board in this regard were, I think, very weak. I think the arguments put forward by the grain exchange and the grain trade, which were not unlike the arguments advanced by the wheat board, carried much more weight, because although they admitted it might be possible to include these other oil seed products, they pointed out that certain problems would result. They recognized that other conditions would have to be met and other concessions would have to be made.
I think this states the position much more realistically. Things have now got to the stage in western Canada where the production of oil seed per acre is so much more profitable than the production of wheat that oil seed products are steadily and rapidly increasing in volume. For that reason, before we reach the stage of saturation, I think we should develop the controls that are necessary.
I realize that this bill was introduced for the specific purpose of beating the deadline and establishing the wheat board as a permanent body, a step with which I think everyone is in agreement. We are all concerned as to whether we should review the act every five years. Since I have been here, the activities of the wheat board have been reviewed many times and under different circumstances; its operations have been reviewed annually in the committee as well as in other forums. But the question always arises whether the activities of the wheat board should be annually reviewed in the committee, or should be reviewed every five years under some form of major overhaul when the
May 25, 1967

Canadian Wheat Board Act deadline arrives. I think it is necessary to decide whether or not we want to dispense with this terminal date and make the board a permanent body. I do not think there is any argument about that.
The one point I should like to make in this regard is that this is marketing type of legislation which is subject to fluctuation in production and ability to sell agricultural products. Therefore, I think there should be some sort of major overhaul and review of this act along the lines of the decennial revision of the Bank Act. Nevertheless, I think all hon. members will support the principle of making the wheat board a permanent body, rather than having to meet this deadline every five years as is the case at present.
I have glanced at the bill but I did not notice a date proposed therein. Therefore, I presume that the board is being made permanent without our making the review that I think is necessary. The minister may be quite right in contending that the annual review made by the committee under its statutory referral is sufficient, but nevertheless I think the minister should give serious consideration to some of the problems which have arisen in relation to the wheat board.
In this regard, I think the members of the committee are to be highly commended for the work they did. I have been a member of the agricultural committee for eight or nine years, and I do not think it is unfair to say that each time the committee has reviewed the report of the wheat board most members had not the faintest notion what it was all about.
For example, Mr. Chairman, there always seemed to be a political difference of opinion over who in fact sold our wheat, whether the credit should go to the government or to the wheat board. I was very surprised to find that technically neither the government nor the wheat board should be given the credit. Our agents really make sales of wheat on behalf of Canada, and this was fairly evident in the last sale that we made to Russia.
A number of matters were highlighted during our discussions to which I think the minister will have to pay some attention because the problems are immediate. We are now greatly increasing wheat production in western Canada. It is possible that western Canada may produce a billion bushels a year, and if this is the case obviously we would be unable to handle it. Hon. members will recall being asked to take drastic legislative action 
to deal with a short-lived strike in two segments of the industry because the industry was operating at top capacity. If the volume is increasing yearly by another 400 million bushels, then we simply would not have the facilities to handle it.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the recommendations made particularly by the grain commissioners warrant consideration by the minister. I believe that the decision as to who should take the extra responsibility which is envisaged is a political one. The minister may decide that the wheat board can expand its activities into another field and empower the wheat board to make recommendations. It may be that the grain commissioners will be given a broader and more important role to play in projecting production and surveying the need for facilities to cope with increasing production. Or again, the minister may decide that another agency entirely should be established. On an occasion such as this, when the Wheat Board Act comes up for discussion I think the minister should assure the country that he will give consideration to these other questions, because they certainly affect the industry and have caused a great deal of concern in western Canada. It was not right for us to work so close to capacity that hysteria would break out as soon as anything untoward developed. We ought to be able to ship our wheat via our railways to the harbours, and enable every farmer to sell his crop. That, of course, has happened. I have in mind all the grain that we shipped in the last season, and I ask the government to pay attention to the committee's recommendations. We worked close to capacity, and the committee made some sensible suggestions. I think the minister would be well advised to refer this matter to the committee for further study. Should any legislation evolve from the committee's study, it would meet with the approval of the government and the country.


Warner Herbert Jorgenson: This afternoon, during my remarks, I referred to the schedule and to the need to bring it up to date. It should never be so outdated as it has been for the past year. The minister did not refer to the schedule when he replied. Would he inform the house how frequently he recommends that the schedule be overhauled? Is it to be once a year, or how often?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet acquired enough experience with the rate of
May 25, 1967

change of items in the schedule to answer satisfactorily, but I was quite aghast-and that is the correct word-to see the extent to which the schedule is out of date. It is high time for it to be brought up to date, and of course the wheat board agreed with that. No one will need to press me or the wheat board to change the schedule so long as I am responsible for the operation. I should like to see to what extent the list is changing, and I readily give hon. members an undertaking that we shall not let it get out of date to this extent again.


Edward Nasserden: I forgot to ask a question when I was speaking. Probably it is out of order now, but I hope the minister will deal with it. Have the details of the new international wheat agreement been published yet, or when may we expect them to be published?


Robert Henry Winters: The elements of the arrangement have been reached between the major exporting and importing countries. The next step is to bring in all the other countries which were involved in the GATT negotiations, and the step after that is to bring in countries which are not members of GATT but which are nevertheless members of I.W.A. In addition we shall endeavour to bring in other countries which are not members now of the I.W.A. but which might be interested in coming into an over-all world wheat agreement.
It will take some time to progress through these stages which are being worked on now and it may not be until some time early in the new year before over-all agreement embracing all nations that are interested in exporting or importing wheat is turned into a definitive one.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister referred to the I.W.A. On a former occasion in the house I said that in my part of the world the letters I.W.A. stand for the woodworkers union-the International Woodworkers of America.
I do not intend to speak long on this clause, but I think it is appropriate to draw to the attention of the minister and to the members of the Canadian Wheat Board the film we saw this evening which showed a revolutionary method of icebreaking. All of us who saw it I am sure were struck by the possibility of a revolutionary transformation in methods of moving bulk goods from various parts of this country. We ought to be aware of this development. We often talk in the house about living in an age of rapid technological change,
Interpretation Act
and I hope that the minister and the wheat board, in considering the future marketing of Canadian wheat, will attend to any developments that might arise from the example we saw this evening.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Reynold Rapp: At the next sitting of the house.



INTERPRETATION ACT


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: the second reading of Bill No. S-6, to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act and amendments thereto, and to effect certain consequential amendments to the Canada Evidence Act and the Bills of Exchange Act.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, as an introduction to the debate on second reading of Bill No. S-6 to revise and consolidate the Interpretation Act, I think it will be enough for me to make a few very brief remarks.
Everyone knows, and the members of this house know it to a high degree, the role played by an Interpretation Act in a system of statutory rights. An interpretation act is, so to speak, a basic tool, the cornerstone of a system of statutory rights which facilitates not only the understanding thereof but its drafting. In a society like ours, Mr. Speaker, where we are more and more enclosed in a framework of laws and regulations, where we live in a very complex world regulated by a network of laws also complex, the legislator must strive to simplify as much as possible the system of laws and make their interpretation easier.
That is why an Interpretation Act was enacted as the first chapter of the statutes of the first Canadian parliament, a century ago, as a sort of preamble to all subsequent legislation and statutes to be passed in the future. Of course, Mr. Speaker, in the past century, a great number of amendments have been made to the Interpretation Act and now and then, those amendments have been incorporated in

May 25, 1967
Interpretation Act
consolidations of revised statutes which have been published, but this is the first time in a hundred years that legislator has fully reviewed that Interpretation Act and introduced a number of new definitions. He has also added to that act modern rules not only with regard to drafting but also to analysis and understanding which had been accepted by our parliaments and our courts at various periods.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
Therefore, I wish to point out that this Interpretation Act somewhat recasts the form and subject matter of the former Interpretation Act. This bill has now been under study for around ten years by the officials of the Department of Justice. It was introduced to parliament in 1962 and reintroduced on several occasions during various sessions of various parliaments but, every single time, as a result of an adjournment or prorogation of the houses, it came to naught.
Mr. Speaker, the house is familiar with the bill under study, since it is very much the same as was approved last March by the permanent committee on justice and legal affairs. It differs very little from that bill. In a while, I shall indicate what changes were made. The bill now before the house was passed by the Senate, after going through the three stages, and we have now reached the motion for second reading in the House of Commons.

This bill having been through all three stages in the Senate, I hope we shall be able to deal with it fairly quickly. It is the same bill as was referred back by the standing committee on justice and legal affairs last March; it is the same bill, with four or five slight modifications. Perhaps I shall have a chance to deal with these differences later when we examine the matter clause by clause.
I can only plead with the house to consider this as a matter of some urgency. The commission which parliament set up two years ago to revise the statutes cannot bring its work to fruition until parliament has adopted this Interpretation Act, since the act does contain definitions and interpretations which are essential to the interpretation of statute law.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I commend the minister on the introduction tonight of his first piece of major legislation. After 
all, the Interpretation Act is, as he has indicated, the foundation upon which rest many of the other bills with which parliament has to deal. The hon. gentleman comes to the house with a reputation as being a small "1" liberal. I believe he will have many opportunities to deal along those lines with other legislation introduced by the government from time to time. We need this kind of approach, within reason.
I gather there have been some inconsequential changes, as a result of which the bill before us differs in some respects from the bill which was considered by the Senate and by the standing committee. I was not a member of the standing committee but I have had an opportunity to look up the record and read some of the observations made during the debates in the other place and before the standing committee. Basically, this is a matter of housekeeping, of tidying up, of making certain changes in the right context.
In addition, the bill probably takes note of certain decisions of the courts in connection with interpretation which the government and its advisers have felt should be reflected in its provisions for the sake of greater clarity; where there is one road which might be taken, the government wishes a particular road to be pointed out.
There is one clause in this bill, however, to which I must object. I will deal with it now, and invite the minister to indicate his view when he closes the debate. I know that my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), who was a member of the committee, feels as I do about this particular clause. He had hoped to be here this evening; indeed, he was here until the supper recess. I shall not go into details now; there will be an opportunity to do that when we get into committee. But I must refer to clause 2, the clause which purports to define regulations and enactments, in order to make my point plain. It would probably be best to read what is set out under 2(c) and 2(e).
(c) "enactment" means an Act or a regulation or any portion of an Act or regulation ...
(e) "regulation" includes an order, regulation, order in council, order prescribing regulations, rule, rule of court, form, tariff of costs or fees, letters patent, commission, warrant, proclamation, by-law, resolution or other instrument issued, made or established
(i)	in the execution of a power conferred by or under the authority of an Act, or
(ii)	by or under the authority of the Governor in Council.
During the discussion in the committee my hon. friend from Parry Sound-Muskoka
May 25, 1967

raised this point and one of the learned counsel from the department-I think it was the associate deputy minister-gave an explanation and an assurance to the committee, a( 9:20 p.m.)
The subject of the objection and of the doubt raised in the committee was the effect of this amendment (e) (ii) to give the authority to the Governor in Council to enact regulations without the authority of statute. This is the point that concerns a great many members of the House because we have seen a great many illustrations of it in the last year or so. The associate deputy minister replied that in his view, and he gave an assurance to that effect, this did not have the result of enacting substantive law and of giving to the government rights which it did not possess previously. This is the way I read the exchanges which took place between the witness and hon. members.
But, Mr. Speaker, that might be good enough for the committee. They did not pursue it to any great extent. However, quite honestly it is not good enough for me. I want to know what rights does the government now contend exist in the Governor in Council to enact regulations and orders in council not under the authority of statutes. It may well be that there have been cases where the extent to which the Governor in Council could exercise the opportunity to enact regulations, without this right being founded on a statute, has been in doubt. The effect of this amendment might well be to settle such doubt, to settle at least any anxieties which the government may have with regard to this right, a right to which I take the strongest possible exception unless it comes under the age old prerogative and of section 12 of the B.N.A. Act to which I will refer later. If it is the case that through this amendment the government is not seeking to secure the right to enact regulations and orders in council without doing so under the authority of a statute, then why was it necessary to include this amendment (e) (ii)? This is the point that puzzles me. It is my view, and I think the view of a lot of other members and of a lot of people in this country, that governments are powerful enough in this day and age without the authority to encroach on the rights of individuals without parliament having given .governments the right to do so by specific terms, by definite intent, and by definite words in a statute. I cannot conceive of any other circumstances under which the Governor in Council is so entitled to enact regulations and orders in council, and if that be the
Interpretation Act
case then the question the minister must answer is why was it necessary to add this particular amendment.
I recognize that there are a number of cases where parliament gives to the Governor in Council, to other boards, or to a minister, the right to issue regulations or to enact orders in council. In such cases the Governor in Council, tribunal or minister has the right to do so, and may directly enact regulations and orders in council which come within the Interpretation Act, it being a statute.
But that cannot be done unless there is a statute authorizing it, and if this is the case then I have to repeat myself: why was this amendment included?
Section 12 of the British North America Act is a very interesting section. I shall not read it in full because the minister is probably well aware of it. It states that all powers, authorities and functions which under any act of the parliament of Great Britain or of the parliament of the United Kingdom were vested in or exercisable by the governors or lieutenant governors of the provinces at the time of confederation, or which were capable of being exercised in a similar way by the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, would be continued in being and could be exercised by the Governor in Council of the newly formed country. But these were still rights which were exercised under a statute. The British North America Act is a statute, and my argument is that if the Governor in Council purports to act in any way not under the authority of a statute which this parliament has passed since confederation, then he can only do so under the authority of section 12 of the B.N.A. Act.
Quite simply my argument is that there is no justification or explanation for the addition of this particular amendment. We had an example of this matter not so long ago. A colleague of the minister, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), came before us at the tag end of last session, and for reasons which I do not attribute as being his fault, asked us in effect to approve in a retroactive way payments of money which the minister and the government had made under an order in council not pursuant to statute. This was with respect to the adult occupational training act. I am not sure that is its exact title, but hon. members will recall it.
On April 1, under an arrangement which had been made, the minister set machinery in motion by which he started paying out

May 25. 1967
Interpretation Act
certain moneys of the taxpayers of this country to people and to provinces. He did so, purporting to act under the authoritiy of an order in council passed pursuant to an appropriation bill or pursuant to supplementary estimates-I am not sure which. But, Mr. Speaker, the order in council which was passed was not passed pursuant to a specific statute of this parliament.
Despite that fact, it was not until May 8, when this house met to complete the final measures required for prorogation, that royal assent was given to the bill, thus for the first time giving authority to the minister and to the government to pay out these moneys. That was a flagrant illustration of the government passing an order in council without authority to do so, save by the very tenuous right of being enacted under an appropriations bill, with the result that the government had to come back to parliament five or six weeks later and ask for approval of the legislation.
This is the kind of thing which we have to worry about and be concerned about. It is for this reason I raise this matter and ask the minister to deal with it before we complete our consideration of this bill.
If the minister advises me that it is not the government's intention by this amendment to carve out for itself, or for any succeeding governments, the right to enact regulations and orders in council unless with the authority of a statute, then I would ask him to make that plain by an appropriate amendment. If, in fact, what the associate deputy minister said is the intention of the government, then I would suggest a simple amendment which the minister could consider between now and the time when we get into committee.
I would suggest he consider adding the following words after (e)(ii): "provided that this bill does not purport to convey or to grant to the Governor in Council the right to enact regulations save when authorized by statute." At this stage I am not trying to indicate the form of any amendment which might be moved, but if the government's view corresponds with what I think the law should be, and with what I think the associate deputy minister attempted to convey to the committee, the minister could make this quite plain by an amendment of this kind which would set at rest the doubts and anxieties which hon. members have with regard to the provision in (e)(ii).
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Now, Mr. Speaker, this may seem to be highly technical and tenuous, but believe me it is not. All over the world we see examples where the lights of freedom are flickering out and where constitutional governments are being replaced by military or other forms of dictatorship. We think, because we have the right of freedom to assemble here as representatives of the people, that this type of thing cannot happen. It seems to me that all too often we tend to turn our parliament into a stage across which people posture and strut dealing with what might be entertainment issues without getting down to the nuts and bolts-the real issues-of democracy. All too often we let these things pass without prying into them. Then, at a later date, we wake up to find that the rights of the individual citizen have been filched away. Before this bill passes I think the government should provide an answer to this particular aspect of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the second time today my remarks will be brief. First I should like to indicate my support of the plea made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that we be given a clear understanding concerning what the government has in mind and what can be read into the new definition of a regulation to which reference has been made. I realize that the explanatory notes which tell us what this clause 2 is all about are very disarming. There is a two sentence paragraph which I should like to read. It appears opposite clause 2 of the bill:
The definitions of "Act", "enactment" and "regulation" are new.
Well, we know that.
Their purpose is to apply the whole of the Act to all orders in council and to the various instruments made under the authority of statutes.
That is vague, but it is disarming to suggest that the purpose here is simply to make sure that anything that is done by way of regulation must conform to the principles and rules laid down in the new Interpretation Act. In the process of doing this we are being asked to give, as the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, what seems to be an extension of the power to doing things by order in council. Perhaps there is an explanation which the learned professor of constitutional law can give us later on, but I hope it will be good.
Previously, it was clear that orders in council could be passed only in pursuance of a

May 25, 1967

power conferred by or under the authority of an act. That is our understanding; that is the practice; that is the tradition; that is the way things must be. But we now seem to have added the right for a regulation or order in council to be made simply by or under the authority of the Governor in Council. I do not wish to dwell on this for long, but I must confess to the same anxiety and apprehension expressed by the hon. member for Peace River that this seems to be giving the Governor in Council a blank cheque in the matter of orders in council.
There is no doubt there have been times when governments have passed orders in council that have had doubtful validity. I can be quite impartial about this and refer to two recent examples, one under a Conservative government and one under a Liberal government. In the case of the Conservative government, I have in mind the import control order which was passed just after the election of June, 1962. The government of that day contended it had the right to do it on the basis of two statutes. Here in parliament we doubted that right. In due course certain people went to court over the matter. As a result of that the new government that came in after the next election decided that maybe there was some doubt and that that doubt should be taken care of by the passing of a new statute. At the moment I am not stating an opinion concerning who was right or who was wrong. I stated at the time what was-and still is- my view, but the point I am making is that it can happen that a government, even under the rules and regulations we now have, can enact an order in council of doubtful validity. What can parliament do, unless someone goes to court about it? Under the authority the executive has under our constitution, unless it is beaten on the floor of parliament, things which are quite illegal nevertheless have a way of standing.
I am thoroughly convinced that the order in council which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) obtained from his colleagues with regard to the occupational retraining measure was invalid. It was in effect for a reasonably short period, from April 1 until May 8, or some time shortly thereafter. I suppose now that it has been confirmed by legislation there is no possibility of its ever being tested. Some of us will remain of the opinion that for a period of five or six weeks the government operated under an order in council which did not have constitutional validity. But, what can parliament or
Interpretation Act
the country do about it? The money has been spent under the provisions of this order in council. If a year or two from now the Auditor General finds that this should not have been done, all that will happen is that he will say in his report that this money was spent without proper authority. No one will go to jail for having broken the law. No law will be unscrambled; it was done by executive action and there it stands.
I cite these examples for the purpose of underlining the case made so effectively by the hon. member for Peace River; namely, that because errors can be made and because liberties can be taken with the right to pass orders in council, we should circumscribe those rights as carefully as we can to make sure that we are not placing in a statute of parliament words which give the government a blank cheque.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) when he replies can satisfy us on the point I will be the first to admit he has made his case, if he makes it. However, I join with the hon. member for Peace River and other members of the house in saying that a very good case must be made, because I do not like to see parliament pass an act which says that the Governor in Council can pass an order in council simply by or under the authority of the Governor in Council.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
This is like lifting oneself up by one's bootstraps. It is like saying I have the authority because I have the authority. This should be looked into very carefully.
There is one other point I should like to make, but similar to many of one's points, it has subpoints. The explanatory note in this bill says that its purpose is to establish uniform definitions and modes of expression in order to eliminate repetition in our statutes and to facilitate the drafting and the construction of them. Let me cite a couple of examples which strike me as indicating that this desire for uniformity of definition has not been achieved.
There is a clause in the bill now before us to which I should like to make a passing reference before Your Honour feels he should remind us about references to clauses on second reading. This clause, which indicates how a person's age is to be determined, reads in such a manner that on the day of one's eighteenth birthday he becomes 18 years of age at the beginning of that day. If you look at the Criminal Code you will find a definition there which differs. It states that

May 25, 1967
Interpretation Act
you are not 18 years of age when the day of your eighteenth birthday arrives, but only when that day is fully completed.
Do not ask me what turns on this differ-*ence, but I find it passing strange that we should have a definition in the Criminal Code saying when you reach a certain age and a definition in the Interpretation Act which varies from that, even by just one day, especially when we are told that the purpose of this legislation is to establish uniform definitions.
I also noticed another clause in the bill now before us, specifically subclause (17) of clause 28, which defines "holiday". It lists a certain number of days as holidays. I would assume that if these days listed in the Interpretation Act as our holidays they should be the days which are holidays in this country. If you look at the Canada Labor (Standards) Code you will find a slight variation, and if your turn up the rules of the House of Commons you will find a day mentioned there that is not mentioned in either of these statutes. There are also questions arising about holidays that fall on Saturday and Sunday, and so on. I put these under the general heading of the contention that the purpose of this legislation is to provide uniformity. I have cited two examples where there is a lack of uniformity, and I should be glad to hear some explanation of this situation.
As I indicated, there seems to be no need for extensive discussion of this measure before us, but when we have one in respect of which we are told its purpose is simply to tidy things up, it always seems necessary to take a close look at it. Like the hon. gentleman who preceded me, I am particularly anxious to hear from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) about what seems to us to be a elause in the bill which would extend the powers of the government in respect of making orders in council. This is something about which we cannot but be concerned.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to associate myself with the learned and scholarly argument made by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I am one who shares the anxiety that a number of persons have had in *connection with the definition of "enactment" and "regulation".
I must confess to some disenchantment with the new Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) who, in making his presentation, did not deal with the very scholarly argument [Mr. Knowles.)
presented in the Canadian Bar Review by a distinguished member of the bar of the city of Ottawa, Mr. Gordon F. Maclaren, Q.C. Mr. Maclaren, in the December, 1966 issue of this publication presented this case in vivid and readily understandable language. I suppose the fact is that the Minister of Justice is not a member of the Canadian Bar Association and never has been, and therefore has not been a subscriber of the Canadian Bar Review.


Mr. Trudeau:: Are you a member of the Montreal Bar Association?


Richard Albert Bell: I am a member of the Canadian Bar Association, but there has not been a Minister of Justice in the present government who has been a member of that association, and that is an indication of the contempt in which the portfolio of justice has been held by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). However, sir, that is a deflection from what I had intended to say, induced by the interjection of the Minister of Justice.
The argument simply is this that in the definition clause, there has been a restoration of a prerogative right which all lawyers had thought disappeared long ago. No one has yet explained why it was thought necessary to adopt this definition. I am one of those who does not understand why in the other place, in view of the learned dissertations they had on this subject before sending this bill down to us the second time, they did not give some attention to it. If that is the chamber of sober second thought, and I must confess I find it difficult at times to understand that description, they certainly ought to have done something about an examination of this position at least in one of their committees.
The contents of this particular bill go far beyond what was the initial intention of establishing uniform definitions and modes of expression, and the elimination of repetition in the statutes. The minister has a very heavy onus upon him tonight to establish that there is not being brought in by the back door some method or technique of restoring a prerogative right long since disappeared. I intend to sit down in time to give him plenty of opportunity to try to explain or answer these questions. Indeed, I was surprised he did not answer them during his initial presentation, because he must have known that they would inevitably be raised during this debate.
Let me also say that the time has come for the minister to make some clear statement to the house as to when this bill and the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1967, which are
May 25. 1967

supposedly dependant upon it, are going to be in fact presented. If the revised statutes for
1967	are dependant upon this bill, as has been stated, this bill ought to have been presented and discussed long ago, and I am sure this house would have been very glad to see that there was enough time to do so without delay.
The revised Statutes of Canada, 1967, should be published in 1967 rather than in
1968	or 1969, as the grape vine now appears to indicate. I hope the minister will be in a position to give us an assurance in this regard. Let me say to him that for my part, unless he gives an absolute assurance, I intend to vote against those clauses which deal with the new definitions of "enactment" and "regulation" which appear to restore a prerogative right, which I think this parliament would never permit.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's statement will close the debate.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, there are two points with which I should like to deal. I shall first deal with the second point of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) because it is the minor one. I think I can give an explanation in less than two minutes and then I will deal at greater length with the other point which was originally raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was concerned about the lack of uniformity of definitions. Of course he is quite right in pointing out that various statutes do have different definitions. The object of an interpretation act is precisely to tend toward uniformity of definition, but of course the interpretation act by itself is not essentially substantive law and cannot pretend to amend other acts such as the Criminal Code or the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which were the two examples mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We are discussing here an interpretation act which tends to give general definitions which will be applicable to the greatest possible number of statutes. In due course when we revise the other statutes, when they are before the house, I expect parliament will take into consideration the kind of remark that was made by the hon. member and achieve the laudable aim of reaching uniformity of definition. But of course we cannot do it by way of an interpretation act. All we are doing by way of the Interpretation Act is trying to get as large
Interpretation Act
a definition as possible applicable to the greatest number of acts.
There will always be, for particular statutes, particular definitions. It is not the intention of this bill, nor could it be the will of parliament, I think, to dispense in the future with all interpretive sections which appear at the beginning of each statute and which mean to give particular definitions to particular statutes.
This is a general one. Indeed, I hope that when we look at the various other statutes we will tend toward a general definition but we cannot, I repeat, do it by this Interpretation Act.
On the major point that was raised by the hon. member for Peace River and then taken up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), I appreciate and respect their point of view. In the few minutes that are left I will try to deal with it. I would make two points for the consideration of these hon. members. The first is that an interpretation act does not essentially, fundamentally, tend toward creating new powers and new rights for anybody.


Richard Albert Bell: But it may.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would, if parliament
spelled out quite precisely in an interpretation act or any other act that it was conferring new powers. But obviously if we read clause 2 (e) it is not conferring new powers to anyone; it is just giving a definition to the word "regulation". Clause 2 (e) says what the word "regulation" will mean in all other statutes and indeed in orders in council whether under the authority of an act or not. It is just saying what the word "regulation" will mean; it is giving no one the power to make regulations. That is the first point.
If this clause is read carefully I submit that it can in no sense be thought to be giving power to anyone. It is only giving a definition. The subtle argument which was brought forth by the hon. member for Peace River is that if this is so, if we are not giving any new powers, are we implying by clause 2 (e) (ii) that there is such a thing as a regulation made by governor in council not under the authority of an act? The answer of course is yes. The hon. member himself gave the reason for that. It is that the governor in council has inherited a certain number of prerogatives which are, I think, disappearing over-

May 25, 1967
Interpretation Act
the years as statutes come to indicate precisely what the prerogatives are. The prerogatives themselves may be replaced by a statute. But the hon. member very correctly referred to section 12 of the British North America Act and read it to mean that the governor in council could indeed exercise a certain number of prerogatives or authorities to make regulations, but regulations in the meaning of rule of court, by-law, commission, warrant or proclamation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to interrupt the minister but I wonder whether he would permit a question. If that is so, would it not be the case that although it might be invoking prerogatives which existed in England and in the provinces prior to 1867, nevertheless the governor in council was now purporting to act under section 12 of the British North America Act, which is a statute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was coming to that point.


Gerald William Baldwin: I just did not want you to forget it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is a very crucial point and I was precisely leading up to it. I am sure that the hon. member, by the way in which he has just stated his case, would not want to destroy all prerogative rights of the governor in council. There may be some which subsist. All the hon. member wants to point out is that if any do subsist, they come under an act, the British North America Act. I think I can convince him that his fear is not well founded if he reads the Interpretation Act. Section 2(l)(a) of the Interpretation Act provides that "act", means an act of the parliament of Canada. Therefore in clause 2 (e) (ii), when we talk about the execution of a power under the authority of an act, we can only mean under the authority of an act as defined by this act. "Act" means an act of the parliament of Canada. Therefore, if we did not have the second subparagraph and left only the first, we would be destroying any authority given to the word "regulation" in its broad sense under section 12 of the British North America Act, which is not an act of the parliament of Canada.
I must remind hon. members that the Interpretation Act itself has an interpretation section, which is the section we are now discussing. This interpretation section specifies the act we are now discussing, which is an act of the parliament of Canada and not an act of the United Kingdom parliament, as is the
fMr. Trudeau.]
British North America Act. Therefore on these grounds I would suggest to the hon. member that unless he wants to destroy all prerogatives which might belong to the governor in council he should not press the type of amendment he was suggesting.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I share completely the concern of these hon. members for restraining as much as possible the authority of any government to act through order in council not under the authority of a statute. I think that in the last analysis parliament must confer the overwhelming majority of any authority which can be exercised by the governor in council and therefore it must be conferred by statute. But I am suggesting to these hon. members that we should not, by way of an interpretation statute, presume to destroy the whole idea of prerogatives which might belong to the governor in council. Perhaps we would want to envisage that and these hon. members would want to submit a statute to that effect.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
But I am suggesting that the Interpretation Act is not the place to do this because, once again, it does not tend to confer new powers or to destroy old ones. It merely tends to give the legislators, the judges and the citizens who are reading the acts, the rules and definitions which permit the statutes and the regulations to be as simple as possible, not cluttered up with endless interpretation sections at the beginning of the statutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the minister permit a question? Has the executive been under any handicap with respect to the prerogatives set out in section 12 of the B.N.A. Act because it has not had the provision now being put into the Interpretation Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: and I imagine that hon. members would not raise this kind of objection in such a case because it would appear as section 2 in every statute. Now that we are incorporating it into the Interpretation Act perhaps our attention is drawn to the fact, but I suggest that no section could be read as conferring upon anyone any power that he did not have before.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that I call it ten o'clock?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this debate be continued in committee of the whole at some later stage? I have no objection to continuing discussion of that particular section, but at least we would advance one step further.


Gerald William Baldwin: Having in mind the very interesting argument which the minister advanced, I was going to ask him a question which would indicate my reason for believing we should not finish tonight.
Could we obtain and have available at the time we go into the committee stage some indication from the minister's departmental officials as to what regulations and orders in council the department and the government envisaged as being likely to be passed under section 12 of the B.N.A. Act which caused the government to request that this section be amended, so that we might have some idea why it is felt necessary to secure this additional power? For this reason, I do not see
Business of the House
how we can complete the discussion of this matter tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Acting House Leader announce the government business?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to call as the first item the estimates of the Department of Transport, to be followed by Item No. 8 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act. If, by some unforeseen good fortune, these measures are passed, we would call the estimates of the Solicitor General.


Richard Albert Bell: Would the acting house leader be good enough to indicate what he thinks might be the business on Monday and perhaps even on Tuesday?


Lawrence T. Pennell: So far as I can foresee at this moment, if the estimates of the Department of Transport are not completed, we would continue with them on Monday, to be followed by the estimates of the Secretary of State, and then by the estimates of the Postmaster General. I am sure the house realizes that sometimes unforeseen circumstances could force an alteration, but, as I have announced, these are my expectations for Monday's business.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 26, 1967