1967-11-02

Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members know, on Monday, November 6 we mark the one hundredth anniversary of the first sitting in the first session of the first parliament of Canada, and it has been decided to take note of this occasion by holding a ceremonial royal assent.
The house will meet as usual at 2.30 in the afternoon, and I am given to understand that the various party leaders will make suitable remarks following which we will go ahead with our ordinary proceedings, which will be interrupted at about four o'clock for the purpose of proceeding to the Senate and the giving of royal assent.

The hon. members have no doubt already received an invitation which the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons have sent to a reception which will be held today from 6 to 8 p.m. in Confederation Hall.
I am also advised that a film on the parliament buildings will be shown in the railroad committee room at 1.30 p.m. for the English version and at two o'clock for the French version.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier):: I beg
leave to introduce Bill No. C-178 entitled: "An Act to Amend Canada Elections Act (Form of Ballot)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, in order to identify clearly to the voters the candidate representing the population of a constituency, this bill asks that the outgoing member be listed at the top of the ballot.
This position on the ballot would help to curtail the tricks of some petty politicians who might try to run in the same riding, an opponent having the same name as the former member.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-179 entitled "An Act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (Grants of Aids and Supplies)".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to include, under section 53 of the British North America Act, standing order 63 of the house which stipulates that it would be advisable to insert in the constitution rather than in the standing orders the restrictions laid upon the Senate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr
Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister believe that the sweeping indictment of the C.B.C. management and board of directors by the Secretary of State on a television appearance, when she accused management of rottenness and the board of having been "buffaloed" will help his efforts to recruit qualified people for the presidency and vice presidency of the corporation?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there was anything sweeping about this statement.

November 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Fairwealher:: Mr. Speaker, may I
direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. Does the minister wish to leave unrepentant her blanket accusation that C.B.C. management is rotten-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I had some doubt about the original question. The hon. member knows he can ask questions relating to statements outside the house only of the Prime Minister, and can ask only if such is government policy. I am not sure whether this is what the hon. member wanted in asking his first question, but his supplementary is purely argumentative.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that for the past two years she has been the minister answering to the house for the C.B.C., may I ask her when it first came to her attention that there was some rotten management in many places in the C.B.C.; whether she drew these instances to the attention of the C.B.C. officials, and what response she received from them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize that the comment I made about the question put by the hon. member for Royal applies equally to this question. Hon. members cannot ask questions about statements made outside the house except of the Prime Minister, and then only to determine whether they represent government policy.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order-


Mr. Siarr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can readily-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking a question about policy. The minister has made a very sweeping indictment regarding the administration of an agency of the government for which she is responsible. I am asking the minister now whether these instances came to her attention during the past two years and whether she drew the attention of this agency to the fact that there was rotten management. I am not asking for a statement of policy, I am asking the minister what she has done and what response she has received from the agency in question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as restated appears more in order than the question asked in the first instance. I shall allow the minister to answer.
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of
Slate): Mr. Speaker, in the first place I am not responsible for the C.B.C. in the way that responsibility might be construed from the hon. member's question.
As to the substance of what he is asking I have, as is my responsibility, come to know more and more about this corporation, as about other agencies for which I have reported to parliament, over the past two years. It is really in the past two weeks that from some exceptionally knowledgeable people I have been given some examples which cause the use of language which might otherwise be considered too colourful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Miss LaMarsh:: Such instances have not been brought to the attention of the individuals concerned since the bill is now before the house and there is at least a reasonable probability that within the next few weeks or months there will be some changes in personnel and presumably some very great changes within the corporation's management.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the blanket nature of the minister's denunciation, and since there may be those who are not responsible for rotten management, does the minister intend to be more specific and give the house or the broadcasting committee more information regarding this matter?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: While my present inclination is that when the new appointments are made both as to board and senior management the most efficient course would be for those individuals who have brought me this information to discuss the matter with the new appointees. This is a matter of internal management and should be corrected inside the corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the hon. Secretary of State.
When the hon. minister states that most of the people in charge of programs must be
November 2, 1967	COMMONS
radicals, progressists interested in the lesser values and all that evolves, in short, that type of alert people, does she mean that only radicals can produce interesting programs on television? I would like to know exactly how she feels in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member's question is out of order.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister as a supplementary question whether he approves of the statement of the Secretary of State, which in the meantime smears everybody in the C.B.C.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My hon. friend has been in this house for a long time, and he knows that question is out of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is not half as out of order as the smear by the Secretary of State.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: The indictment of the Secretary of State was out of order and grossly unfair.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And the Prime Minister approves it, too.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State this question. As the C.B.C. is accountable to parliament, would the minister now be prepared to disclose the name of the knowledgeable people she mentioned; and were they working within the framework of the C.B.C.?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry my hon. friend was not listening earlier.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Labour and arises from the statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada that inflation in Canada has been caused mainly by the high cost of borrowing money, at high interest rates. Following this statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada does the government intend in the near future to lower
DEBATES	3775
Inquiries of the Ministry interest rates for National Housing Act mortgage loans, so that at least in one sector of the economy we can begin to reduce costs?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisler of Labour):: I am glad this question was asked, Mr. Speaker, since I can reiterate that the government has not set any interest rates. The government has set a ceiling under which lending institutions may operate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Many of these institutions are lending at rates considerably below the ceiling.


Mr. Graffiey:: The minister gets better all the time.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: As a result of government action housing starts are up. As a matter of fact private funds going into housing have increased and there have been more housing starts in the last six months that in any six month period in Canada's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: Then now that the government has got half the job done, would the minister consider lowering the ceiling in order to produce an over-all beneficial effect upon the whole economy?


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Me-gantic. The minister took advantage of the opportunity to make the statement that all is going well in connection with the housing situation. How can he reconcile this with the fact that there have been 30,000 fewer starts than Canada's anticipated requirement?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument, not a question.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Hon. George Hees (Norihumberland):: I
have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's letter to the provincial treasurers, tabled in this house yesterday, in which he said-
We in the federal government have already reassessed the spending programs and the lending operations of government departments and agencies for the balance of the current fiscal year and for next year.

November 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry
-will the minister advise the house when he intends to announce the reductions in expenditures for the present fiscal year which are to result from the reassessment he has made?
Kon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):
As I have said on a number of occasions, it is my intention to do so shortly.


George Harris Hees: Could the minister be a little more specific and advise us what he means by "shortly"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now rephrasing the question he has already asked.


Hon. R. A. Bell (Carlelon):: Will the hon.
gentleman do so today, before the guillotine falls on the estimates tonight?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A 30-day guillotine.


Mr. Sharp:: No, Mr. Speaker. Estimates are simply a ceiling on the amounts which can be spent. They are not always spent, and they very seldom are.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the house how we are to reconcile the statement just made by the Minister of Finance that there have been reductions in this year's estimates with the statement by the President of the Treasury Board the day before yesterday that there have been no changes in this year's spending plans?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That reconciliation is quite simply made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The Prime Minister says it is quite simple. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would help us by giving a short answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is obviously a debate.


Michael Starr: The Minister of Finance has just told us that estimates are rarely all spent. In these circumstances can he explain to us why it is necessary to have deficits?



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO NEGOTIATIONS WITH EAST GERMANY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade

and Commerce and ask him whether negotiations are currently under way, either on the part of the wheat board or any other Canadian agency, with the government of East Germany or any agency of that government for the sale of wheat under a long term agreement.


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: The wheat board is in communication with agencies of the East German government in connection with our existing contract, but we are not negotiating any new contract at the present time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister based on letters I repeatedly receive from various persons who suggest that royal commissions be appointed to inquire into this and that. I usually reply that royal commissions are becoming more and more expensive and that a long time elapses before their reports are published.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question, not give us a reply to his own question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My question is this. Is the Prime Minister not of the opinion that in view of the good work done by committees of the Senate in connection with land use, the Criminal Code and so on, more use might be made of committees of the Senate to investigate problems which arise from time to time?
Right Kon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Questions asking for an expression of opinion are not in order.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of today's report that the government of The Netherlands has expressed its intention to abrogate its current air agreement with Canada because of the refusal of the Canadian government to grant landing rights to Royal Dutch Airlines at
November 2, 1967

Toronto international airport, will the minister give reconsideration to the government's decision in this regard so that air transport between Canada and The Netherlands will not be greatly curtailed or even terminated? I ask this question because of the many thousands of Canadians of Netherlands origin living within a few hundred miles of Toronto who use this air service constantly.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if The Netherlands government terminated the bilateral agreement. If at any time that should be the case notice would have to be given. I believe the service at the present time is quite satisfactory to both parties involved, and I hope in the years to come it will continue to provide the well known connection between our two countries.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As a supplementary question, has not the expressed intention of The Netherlands government been brought to the attention of the minister today?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, it was, Mr. Speaker, but the subject is much too complicated to discuss at length on the orders of the day.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and his parliamentary secretary may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government, through the Department of Manpower and Immigration, has any plans to aid in the plight of 112 employees of the Canada Cement Plant at Fort Whyte, in Winnipeg, who learned this week that they are going to be laid off their jobs for the next four months starting at the end of November?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to discuss this with the minister.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the minister received complaints to the effect that the C.B.C.'s studio 43 located at the back of the Laurentian hotel in Montreal looks like an abandoned barn and has been a public hazard for at least three years?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to call the attention of the government to a situation which, in his opinion, has been existing for three years, I do not think the question is that urgent.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I am asking this question in the house because I want the press and the public to know that studio 43 in Montreal looks like an abandoned barn.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has now made his representations.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It relates to the special refundable 5 per cent corporation income tax, which I understand comes to about $220 million. In his attempts to curb inflation has the minister considered postponing the repayment schedule of that refundable tax, which presumably is to start in December?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question of government policy, and government policy in a matter like this is disclosed when decisions are made.



BANK OF WESTERN CANADA-PROTECTION OF SHAREHOLDERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the position of shareholders in the Bank of Western Canada. In the light of the fact that shareholders are in this position as the result of the granting of a bank charter by parliament, could the minister say whether the government has any plans to protect innocent shareholders, that is those outside the powerful groups now struggling for control with respect to the bank?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have explained to the house, I believe on a number of occasions,

November 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry the inspector general of banks took special precautions to see that the assets of the bank were protected during this period of uncertainty.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Northwest Territories legislative council is to sit less than two weeks from now, when does the government intend to name the five appointee members who are to sit on that council, in order that they will have an opportunity to study legislation coming before its next session?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would hope very shortly, Mr. Speaker, and before the council meets.



NATURAL GAS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wish to draw to his attention an experiment of vital importance planned by the United States atomic energy commission involving the use of an underground atomic explosion scheduled to take place in the San Juan basin on November 14. If the project is successful the developed natural gas reserves of the United States could be increased by as much as 100 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he has to ask a question. I have the impression that this is more a statement than a question.


Harold Raymond Ballard: I am just at the point of asking the question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the impact this experiment could have on the future production of Canadian natural gas, does the minister plan to send an official of his department to observe and report on this experiment?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, an invitation has been received by the National Energy Board and is now being considered by the chairman, who has just returned from hearings in Vancouver.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, but I will address it to his parliamentary secretary who will perhaps take it as notice. Is the purpose of the new form that is being used or authorized by the department, requiring applicants for immigration to Canada to state their social and political affiliations, to open the gates a little wider to immigration from behind the iron curtain and to simplify security screening?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this question is of general nature and could very well be placed on the order paper.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in response to questions raised in the last few days by the hon. members for Vancouver-Burrard and Vancouver East in connection with the lay-off of some 150 workers from the Victoria Machinery Depot Company, I can report that the department's discussions with the company indicate that the employees affected will be phased out gradually.
My information is that given the present level of activity in the shipbuilding industry in the area, it would be very difficult to keep the laid off crew working together on another project. We have made arrangements for their registration in keeping with their individual lay-off dates. The full services of our Canada manpower centres will be available to these men, including training and mobility provision if the workers so wish.



SYDNEY, N.S.-ASSISTANCE OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS IN STEEL PLANT CLOSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether Mr. Harry J. Waisglass, former United Steelworkers of America research director, who I understand is now a
November 2, 1967

member of the Prime Minister's staff, has been selected by the Prime Minister to lend his talents to assist in consideration of the steel problem at Sydney?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware I have nobody of that name on my staff.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria asked me a question a few moments ago. I do not want to mislead him in my reply. Mr. Waisglass is not on my staff. He is a member of the special secretariat in the Privy Council office. I think they report to parliament through me. It is true that he has been transferred to the Department of Labour, where he is now one of the senior officials. I know his qualifications for the work, but I am not yet sure whether he is actually going to be used in the Cape Breton discussions.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Prime Minister for not splitting hairs any longer. Would the Prime Minister do his utmost to have this man who is knowledgeable in steel and steel work put on this most grave problem in Sydney?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be very glad to do what I can in that respect. If we can use him in an appropriate capacity, naturally we will be glad to do so.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister aware that starting today the dairy farmers and dairy producers of western Canada who ship by rail will be required to pay $6.35 to ship a can of cream, as a result of the increased freight rates; and what plans has the minister to rectify this situation?


Mr. Greene:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A similar
question was asked previously by the hon. member for Mackenzie and other hon. members, and the matter was considered during the adjournment proceedings.
Inquiries of the Ministry



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that Canada's requirements for commercial pilots on our six major air lines will increase by some 1,100 each year, has the transport department initiated any study to ascertain what may be done to establish advanced pilot training programs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is of a very general nature, and I suggest to the hon. member that it could well be placed on the order paper. If there is an emergency in the hon. member's question which escapes me, the hon. member could give notice and have this matter considered during the adjournment debate.



HUMAN RIGHTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he has received a letter dated October 31 from national Canadian organizations whose membership is from eastern and central Europe, in which they ask whether Canada will adhere to their request and commence diplomatic action in connection with the violation of the universal declaration of human rights by the Soviet union.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall receiving such a message but I shall be glad to look into it.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. After the Prime Minister has had a chance to look at this request will the Secretary of State for External Affairs take direct action through our delegation at the United Nations to bring this matter to the attention of the general assembly?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to immediately look at the problem posed by my hon. friend's question.

November 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE LOANS FOR AGRICULTURAL FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In a press interview the minister stated that legislation for loans to agricultural fairs and exhibitions for the construction of multi-purpose buildings is likely to be dealt with this session. Can the minister inform the house when such legislation will be introduced?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, it will be introduced as soon as the financial condition of the country is such that these loans should be brought in, which we anticipate, in view of the government's wise measures, will be soon.



TURKEYS-PROTECTION AGAINST EXPORTS FROM U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Has any formula been found to protect the turkey producers in Canada in respect of importations from abroad?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I met with turkey growers' association representatives from all over Canada yesterday. Representatives of the government are on their way to Washington today to discuss this matter with officials there. I am very hopeful that action can be taken which will alleviate the difficult position in which turkey growers find themselves.



INQUIRY AS TO STAFF HOLIDAY ON REMEMBRANCE DAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning a number of the employees of the house requested that I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister and ask whether the arrangements made for a civil service holiday on Remembrance day will also apply to the employees of the House of Commons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the house sits on that day, as I hope it will, it will naturally require certain assistance. But we will do our best to meet the point of view expressed by my hon. friend.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the interest caused by the intention to increase the alloy content of Canadian coins in the near future, in view of reports that have been written in United States and Canadian newspapers, and because the businessmen who employ automatic vending machines will lose money when coinage of a different composition is used, is the government contemplating some sort of compensation to these businessmen while the change in coinage is in process?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think this question should be placed on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: I will redraft my question, Mr. Speaker, because it is fairly urgent in that it involves a period of perhaps only a few days. These people will be losing millions of dollars, and they are looking for an answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of discussions with this industry. Our decisions will be made known shortly, I hope.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO PROPOSED AGENDA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquefte (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Justice.
In view of the appearance on the Quebec political foreground of Mr. Faribault, who convinced the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) and the Progressive Conservative party to recognize the two-nation theory, I should like to ask the minister if the Quebec government has expressed its intention to include, in the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference, the recognition of the two-nation concept, in accordance with Mr. Daniel Johnson's theories?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel that this is an argument rather than a question.
November 2, 1967


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, if I may rephrase my question. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the question is in order. If the hon. member believes that there is an emergency, he may give notice thereof.


Auguste Choquette: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Minister of Justice: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would rather answer now than come back at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the house will allow the hon. minister to answer-


Mr. Trudeau:: The answer is very simple, Mr. Speaker. I think the Progressive Conservative party should be given a little time to convince the Union Nationale party to become "bi-national".


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister read the speeches of his leader when the latter recognized the two-nation concept in Canada, and especially his 1961 speech in this respect, at the time he was leader of the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that the decision I made originally was quite justified, and I suggest that this supplementary question should be considered during the adjournment debate.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding his recent announcement that the federal government intends to proceed with the development of the deep sea port at Roberts Bank, British Columbia. I sent the minister notice of this question. In view of the fact that his predecessor outlined an extensive program for development of facilities in Burrard Inlet, will the minister assure the house that his recent announcement does not mean the abandonment of that project announced by his predecessor?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure which project my hon. friend is referring to, but I made it very
Inquiries of the Ministry clear at the time of the announcement that the two developments would go forward together as a complement to each other. On that basis I think they can serve the needs not only of British Columbia but of all western Canada in the most effective and competitive way possible to yield to the Canadian taxpayer the greatest dollar value on the investment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: How soon is it anticipated that the expansion and modernization of the facilities in Burrard Inlet will be under way?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are proceeding on a continual basis. I announced simultaneously a $15 million development in the inner harbour on the north shore for containerization, and this will proceed immediately. I think the first berth will be available, if the engineers and others are forecasting accurately, about April 1, 1969.



INQUIRY AS TO STEPS TO MEET REPORTED DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Canada's trade deficit for the month of September as announced this morning is double the trade deficit we had in August, will the minister take the first opportunity on motions to advise the house what steps the government intends to take to reverse this serious trend?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker despite the difference in September this year as compared to last year, our trade performance for the year to date has been good. I believe we will attain the target of $11J billion that was set for this year.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question. Was the minister's answer not reminiscent of the answers given by the government prior to the disaster which occurred in 1957?



INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development.
Would the hon. minister tell us whether it is true that, following the last transport

November 2, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry strike in Montreal, Mrs. Jeanne Sauve is thinking of leaving the management of the C.N.T.U.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harold Raymond Ballard: Mr. Speaker, in view of our recent experience in the house in having a member of the government front benches desert the service for greener fields I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, asking whether she will assure this house and the Prime Minister that no applications will be received for the presidency of the C.B.C. from members of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is not in order.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
In connection with the lay-off of 460 employees by the C.N.R. yesterday in the St. Lawrence area, has the Minister of Transport received some complaints from labour unions or from the employees dismissed? Has he also ordered an investigation to learn the reasons of those dismissals?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that the hon. member is repeating a question already asked in the house.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the lay-off of C.N.R. employees, the minister has contacted the C.N.R. authorities. Further to these talks, is the minister in a position to tell us whether the crown corporation has reconsidered its attitude, so that those people who were fired yesterday may keep their jobs?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the company has reiterated its position, which is that the total decline in rail 
traffic this year is of such substantial nature that the number of people required to provide the service is less and they feel, therefore, that these lay-offs are essential.
I think the number of lay-offs is just about in proportion to the decline in service. I also know that in some areas of the country, if not all-and I have asked them to provide these figures for me-employment in the railway system today is higher than it was a year ago. But last fall in order to meet the special circumstances of the extraordinary movements of bulk commodities, including wheat, extra men were hired. Now that the movement is less voluminous a smaller number of employees and less equipment are required than previously, and that is really the basic cause of the lay-offs at this time.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the house if the C.N.R. has given adequate notice to the minister, to the department or to the government before laying off all these workers?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order. [English]



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask whether he has received a significant number of submissions in recent days complaining that because of the escalating interest rates in our economy the chartered banks have become very reluctant to extend loans under the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and can he say whether the government has any plan to deal with this particular problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this question is in order. The hon. member is asking whether the minister has received a significant number of complaints, and that to my mind cannot be considered an urgent question.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I then rephrase the question. In view of the escalating interest rates in our economy has the Minister of Finance any evidence to show that chartered banks are becoming more and more reluctant to grant loans under the terms of the Farm Improvement Loans Act?
November 2, 19G7


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is much too general in scope, and I feel it should not be asked on orders of the day.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Has the government issued a directive to the banks to the effect that they should slow up on the issue of farm improvement loans?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that for the first time in history the United States is preparing entry curbs on emigration from Canada, which at an earlier date were designated by the minister as a regressive step in Canada-United States relations, will the minister advise whether he is holding talks with the Canadian counterpart in the United States to see that these curbs will not be placed on Canadian emigration?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think I should like to look at that question to make sure I understand correctly the interpretation my hon. friend wished to give to it.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General whether he can say, as is being reported, that he is giving consideration to the proposition that the post office become a crown corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question should be placed on the order paper.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
Supply-Finance
the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Now that the minister is in receipt of the Woods report, can he inform the house when veterans may expect some action as a result?


Hon. Roger Teillet (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. gentleman to say that I have seen the Woods report. Unfortunately I have not as yet seen it.



PUBLIC WORKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Now that the commencement of construction of the national defence tower in Lebreton flats has been postponed, will the government reconsider the question of the height of this proposed building in the hope that it will not be as high as the peace tower?


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it might be better to bring it up at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. Vote No. 25. This vote will be found on page 142 of the blue book. The details are found on page 154.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE Tariff Board-
25. Administration, $358,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote No. 25 carry?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, vote No. 25 deals with the Tariff Board, and I trust that in our discussions this afternoon we will be given some latitude because I should like to speak on a wider range of subjects than would be normally permitted. In any event I think it is quite proper that we should come back this afternoon to the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Finance.
First of all, I believe it is expected there will be some discussions concerning the Kennedy round, and I intend at the beginning of my expose this afternoon to deal with some

November 2, 1967
Supply-Finance
aspects of the Kennedy round of negotiations and some of the problems which Canada will face as a result thereof. Mr. Chairman, I have some difficulty in competing with the voices all around me.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. I wish to bring to the attention of the house that there is a little more noise in the chamber than is usual. This makes it difficult for the Chairman to hear what is being said and for the hon. member who now has the floor to make his remarks.


Mr. Lamberi:: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I say first of all that I believe it is apposite for us to discuss these estimates at this time notwithstanding the fact that not so long ago we concluded the budget debate, and we also had a discussion on the estimates of the Treasury Board. However, as has been pointed out, there are some estimates of the Department of Finance to which we must come back.
I do not know how long the debate will take today, but we all know that the guillotine is to fall at the end of the day and there are still a number of points that have not been answered by the government in any way. For instance, the minister has not indicated, even when he had the chance to do so this afternoon in answer to a question put by my colleague the hon. member for Kamloops, what expenditures would be cut back in this year's estimates. In speaking of this business of dressing up the so-called cutbacks in the estimates I am reminded of an article in today's Globe and Mail entitled "Ottawa Not Retrenching Despite Talk of Pruning" written by Fraser Robertson. We find there the following statement:
On close examination, and it need not be so very close at that, it becomes plain that the government is not really bent upon retrenchment. So far, about all it has done is restrain ministers who were determined to increase departmental expenditure.
This point of view has been put forward in the house time and time again in the last few days.
The real reason I am glad to see the minister here this afternoon is that if we waited until next week to see him we might have difficulty in finding him, because he is likely to be in Edmonton. The house might be interested to know that the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Transport and now I understand the Registrar General are all to be in Edmonton on November 10 and 11. I understand there is to be a Liberal annual meeting there at that time. I rather suspect

this will be a trotting out of show horses or an appearance before the public in the light of possible events in the coming year. I would be interested to know whether each of them will have a hand on the wreath which presumably may be laid by one of them at the cenotaph in Edmonton on November 11. It will probably take the combined strength of all three of them to carry it.
To come back to the Kennedy round, I should like to caution the minister against any haste in introducing legislation with regard to any agreements concerning antidumping legislation, or any haste in deciding what Canada will do with regard to the Kennedy round. Let us face it; the key to the success of the Kennedy round lies with the United States. Canada, because of its peculiar trading pattern, cannot engage in across the board or straight line reductions in tariffs, and has had to do it on a bilateral basis with the United States or on a commodity for commodity basis.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
However, the Kennedy round negotiations were instituted by the late President Kennedy as a result of a presidential election. President Johnson has inherited them. Unfortunately, the presidency does not control everything in the United States. Recently we have seen efforts being made in the congress, and particularly in the senate, toward the introduction of measures which call for the imposition of quotas on the importation of certain commodities in which Canada is very interested. In fact, if these measures reach the status of law, then frankly the whole of the Kennedy round is literally washed out. In connection with steel, oil and a great many other commodities in which Canada is vitally interested, there is no doubt that the action now being taken will frankly sweep away any hope of benefit that Canada may have had as result of the Kennedy round. I say to the minister, therefore, there is no rush for us to get on the statute books those changes which we might be required to make as a result of the Kennedy round.
Having made that point, I would like to go back to some other things I have said in the house. First of all, the other day I asked the minister, in view of rumours, whether it was true a budget would be presented in the next few weeks. Reading between the lines of some of the speeches made by the minister of late, as well as the speech made by the governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday, I think there is a good deal of truth in these
November 2, 1967

general forecasts about a budget within the next three or four weeks. If this is to be the case, then I say to the minister and the government house leader who is present today, it is high time we dealt with the budget resolutions and the bills flowing from them arising out of the June budget before we get into the nonsensical position of having a new budget without having dealt with the measures arising out of the June budget. In the light of economic conditions in the country, these budgetary measures are even more important than some of the other legislation which seems to have been given priority.
For instance, I think of the bill dealing with capital punishment which seems to have been given priority. The question of capital punishment will engender considerable debate in the house. The broadcasting measure is another which will take a large share of the time of the house. There are others, too, in the hopper that are given greater priority than the budget resolutions. I say to the Minister of Finance and his colleagues that immediately upon the termination of the debate on the broadcasting measure, which I think we should complete for the sake of orderly discussion of business, we should then move to the budget resolutions and the bills that flow from them before we do anything else.
Since the minister spoke in the budget debate, a great feeling of uneasiness has developed in the country. I need only point, for instance, to the speech which was delivered by the chairman of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. I trust the minister will see fit to comment on Mr. McKinnon's remarks because they are a damning indictment of government policy. I will not say fiscal policy because there is no such policy. It was rather strange to have the minister tell the .House of Commons he was quite sensitive to criticism of government policies, did not think the strong language used by Mr. McKinnon was helpful and rather thought the situation might be worsened. On the other hand, I do not believe Mr. McKinnon said anything much different from what was implied in the speech by the governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday. I am not going to go through Mr. McKinnon's speech, but here it is. I know he has been commenting over a period of years, and I intend to agree-


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member who is beginning the discussion of the estimates of the
Supply-Finance
Department of Finance today was, I believe, fairly relevant in his earlier observations to the item under discussion, namely the Tariff Board. He made some quite relevant remarks about the Kennedy round. However, I believe he is beginning to stray into a much larger subject. The reason I raise the point now, Mr. Chairman, is that if I let these remarks pass it may be suggested I am in agreement that they are pertinent to the item under discussion. As the hon. gentleman himself has pointed out, we have had one day of general debate on the Department of Finance. We have had a budget debate of several days' duration, which was restarted by a statement I made to provoke discussion on the current situation. This statement was debated for the full length of the budget debate. The budgetary resolutions are still to come, at which time all these comments would be quite pertinent. As I have indicated in the house, I intend to make a statement soon. I can assure members that whichever form the statement takes, it will be debatable. In other words, the government itself will see that time is available for debate.
I know some question has been raised in connection with the short time available for discussion of the remainder of the estimates. I raise the question now, Mr. Chairman, whether this is the best use of that time, and I would welcome from you some guidance to the committee on whether the debate should be permitted to go on in this way.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I point out to the committee that I have been listening to the remarks that have been made. I know we are on vote No. 25 of the estimates of the Department of Finance. Usually there is a rather general discussion on vote No. 1, but on vote No. 25 I would expect the committee to confine its remarks to the item which is before the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I fully realize, Mr. Chairman, that I have strayed slightly but I indicated at the start of my remarks that I might want to stray somewhat from item 25. I was hoping the minister might, under certain tolerant circumstances, perhaps allow a little wider debate. Since he and you, Sir, have called me to order, I am going to comply and I will limit my remarks to item 25 dealing with the Tariff Board. This involves the levels of tariff and perhaps some of the customs procedures. Admittedly, these are under the Minister of National Revenue, but it is rather difficult to separate the two.

decline and the whole exercise will have been for nothing.
I have asked for specific information from the minister, Mr. Chairman. I hope he is able to give us some clarification of the government's program with regard to the Kennedy-round, and I also hope he will take heed of the remarks that I have made in connection with the taxation of industry and the imposition of artificial customs barriers.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I thought I might answer briefly the specific questions put to me by the hon. member for Edmonton West. He will find an answer to his first question at page 1143 of Hansard for June 12, which he must have forgotten when asking the same question now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is possible.


Mitchell William Sharp: At that time I gave a list of the references to the Tariff Board that were still outstanding. The situation remains unchanged though we have had more of the chemical reference reports in the meantime.
As I said in answer to a question on the orders of the day, it is my intention to table on Monday or Tuesday of next week the resolutions on the Kennedy round which will not only include the tariff changes to which we have agreed but also the timetable for the implementation of the changes. In addition, there will be some other resolutions which will give the government flexibility in dealing with these changes in the event, say, that the United States shows any tendency to delay the implementation of theirs. We hope this will not happen, but I think the committee will agree with me that some such provisions are desirable.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I find myself in general agreement with the philosophy expressed by my hon. friend. Indeed, since we were both born westerners, I am sure that we have inherited some of this philosophy. I agree that wherever possible we should use the tariff, that we should use all means to improve our own costs of production and that wherever possible we should avoid taxing the means of production. That is one of the reasons for the government's step to eliminate the sales tax on production machinery. We did that as soon as we could afford it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That tax should never have been imposed. May I ask another question? In his answer, and I thank the minister for it, he did not say which committee will examine 27053-240
Supply-Finance
the government's resolutions. Will that be the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs or a joint committee of the other place and this house?


Mitchell William Sharp: It had been my intention to refer this matter, of course, to the committee of ways and means. I can say this much now. The resolutions consist of a book of several hundred pages. I am open to all suggestions as to how to deal with the matter when I table the resolutions and move the motion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why ways and means?


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Edmonton West I had hoped that you would be more lenient in permitting discussion of these estimates on a wider basis rather than confining it to vote 25. After all, the minister has not spoken on these estimates since June 12 last. His remarks of June 12 are interesting reading now. He was more optimistic then than he seemed to be today. Changes have taken place.
Since Your Honour has said that we must confine ourselves to the item under discussion, the Tariff Board, I wish to make some comments about the probable effect of the Kennedy round if, indeed, as the hon. member for Edmonton West has suggested, it will be effective in the face of projected developments in the United States congress. I and other members on this side of the house have told the minister on a number of occasions that while the Kennedy round is welcome, nevertheless we should not overlook the problem that it will create for Canadian industry.
I was interested to see-and I will not say more since I do not know whether the newspaper report I saw was reliable-that the ideas of the present Minister of Finance with regard to the Canada Development Corporation are different from those of his predecessor. Apparently the present minister intends to use the funds that will be accumulated by the Canada Development Corporation to reorganize and rationalize Canadian industry along the lines that I and other members of this party have suggested on a number of occasions in the house. Before long I hope that we shall see legislation regarding the Canada Development Corporation before the house, since it will have a great bearing on our tariff position.
I have said several times in the house that Canadian industry needs to be reorganized and restructured and that the government

November 2, 1967
Supply-Finance
must take an active part in the reorganization and restructuring. It will not do to rely on guide lines and exhortations. In all probability the investment of public funds will be required in these newly grouped industries if we are to compete in the world and face the winds of competition that the Kennedy round will present to our industry. I hope that before long the minister will be more forthcoming on what his purposes are with respect to the fund.
Before these estimates are passed I hope we shall hear a commitment from the minister about the sort of statement he will make to the house on the economic condition of the country. From what he said today that statement might be made on motions. In that event only two or three of us will be permitted to comment on it. On the other hand, the minister may have in mind the presentation of measures that will enable members of the house to debate the economic condition of the country. That condition, as I said when I began talking, is radically different from that of June 12 when the minister spoke in such cheerful and optimistic terms. I am sure he would not repeat now what he said then.
I expect that we will be taking up another item before long and I hope to be allowed to make some remarks with respect to it without being ruled out of order by Your Honour.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing vote 25 which deals with the Tariff Board we may discuss a number of matters, I take it, which are of relevance directly, indirectly or by implication, to tariffs, trade and trade relations.
If I may deal with a point that my hon. and learned friend from Edmonton West raised with regard to the method of proceeding, I hope the minister will, after reasonable consultation with the opposition parties, provide an opportunity for the entire range of the Kennedy round proposals to be discussed in a committee.
I sometimes wonder whether the minister does not long to return to the relative security of his former portfolio. I wonder whether he would not prefer that to the more exciting portfolio he now holds. During the Kennedy round negotiations I asked him if an opportunity could be provided for the house to discuss them. I prefaced my statement by the admission that we should be careful not to endanger in any way the sensitive negotiations which were then being carried on at Geneva. Had that opportunity been provided for a general discussion and had the various

components of industry in Canada had the benefit of a white paper, we would have been better prepared for the final discussions in this house and industry too would have been better prepared.
During the nine and a half years I have been a member of the house I do not think there has been an exhaustive debate on the issue of foreign trade. We have touched on the question when discussing external affairs or trade relations, but such discussion has been the tail of the kite, so to speak. We have dealt with the question occasionally on the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and on the estimates of the Minister of Finance. Nevertheless, this issue has never been raised effectively in a full scale debate.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I know that the great distinction which once existed between the major parties has become submerged in the course of time, and submerged far more deeply than I should like, coming from the place I do. I am strongly convinced that there will never be any certainty about economic conditions within the countries of this world until the whole question of international trade has been placed upon a far more manageable basis. In this light, the operations of the Tariff Board must be carefully considered and the extent to which references are made to the board must be regarded as an indication not only of the inflow of goods to this country but of the amount of exports leaving Canada. Trading relations must always be a two-way street, and in this sense I hope I shall live to see the day when the barriers which have done so much to restrict the free flow of goods to and from various parts of the world will be largely removed.
One of the most serious problems of all relates to the developing countries. Whether or not they can raise their living standards depends largely on the flow of trade, either bilateral or multilateral. Only if they are able to export can they obtain the supply of capital goods required for the development of their natural resources and the expansion of their own industries so that ultimately they are in a position to deal with the developed countries on a better basis than that which presently exists. With this in mind, it is imperative that we, for our part, should be prepared to offer substantial concessions to the developing countries with respect to the products they have to offer and allow them the exchange and the capital which they
November 2, 1987

require in order to proceed with their own development.
I have the impression that the minister sympathizes with this point of view. I, for my part, believe it is an important factor in the preservation of world peace. The troubles which have arisen in Asia and Africa, and which may yet come to pass in South America, could in my view be prevented, or at least reduced to a minimum, if we were to encourage the type of trade relations which would permit a far freer flow of goods from the developing countries to countries elsewhere.
For these and other reasons, I urge the minister to make sure that the terms of reference to the committee are of the widest, enabling it to engage in a fruitful discussion of this whole field, involving consideration of the Kennedy round and the type of legislation necessary to implement it. There should be an opportunity for all those who are interested to make known their views to members of this house. In this way I suggest we shall later be able to benefit from a more intelligent discussion in this chamber as well as throughout the nation. I am hopeful, therefore, that having heard the words of wisdom poured out this afternoon the hon. gentleman will make certain that no unreasonable restriction is imposed on the type of discussion which is to take place within the committee of this house which would be seized with jurisdiction in this regard.
The question of trade relations is predicated upon not only the inflow of goods to this country, something with which the Tariff Board is directly concerned, but with the outflow of such goods, and this outflow of goods must in turn be closely connected with productivity. The question of productivity brings us to one of the main issues which confront the government today, the extent to which the fiscal policies of this country are restraining and damaging the activities of those of our people who are engaged in export.
Reference was made to this subject in the house at question time today. This is not the occasion on which to go into those exchanges in any detail, but I think the question about which our people generally are worrying most at this moment is: What is to be the fiscal policy of the government? President Roosevelt said: "We have nothing to fear except fear itself." This is what most concerns me-the psychology which is taking hold among so many of the influential and knowledgeable people who are connected with industry and labour across Canada.
27053-240J
Supply-Finance
What does the government intend to do? It is all very well for the minister to say, as he did in answer to a question earlier, that expenditures do not always equal the amount indicated in the estimates. One has only to look at the reports of the Auditor General year after year listing expenditures actually made compared with the amounts contained in the estimates to be persuaded to the contrary. I do not know whether there were instances of this under the former government. In any event I have not been able to find one example during the administration of the present government when expenditures were less than the amount estimated. Perhaps the minister is able to refer me to one.


Mitchell William Sharp: So that there may be no misunderstanding about this, I said that the government could only spend the amount of money which parliament voted, and governments very seldom spend that much. If we were to spend more than parliament voted it would be illegal.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear that. I would hate to think that the minister would try to spend more than had been provided by parliament, though I know that in the past the government has done everything possible to spend at least the amounts voted. However, I would point out that the estimates of expenditure shown in the blue book represent merely one phase of the government's expenditures. What we are worrying about now are supplementary estimates. We know that in 1966-67 a certain amount was voted in the main estimates. But we find that the government spent $1,100 million more than that through supplementary estimates. And this was quite legal.
We know how much the estimates amount to. We also know that two sets of supplementary estimates are being brought down. But what do we know about the government's intentions between now and the end of the fiscal year? Can the minister tell us that between now and March 31, 1968, the government will not bring down further supplementary estimates? If the government intends to do so, can he say how much will they amount to?
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
We know that the government states it is doing this and that in pruning expenditures. Sometimes I think the minister must appreciate the task which Hercules undertook when he had to clean out the Augean stables as he

November 2, 1967
Supply-Finance
attempts to persuade his colleagues to cut their estimates. Later on we will know how successful he has been when the blue book containing the estimates for the next year is presented. However, we do not want to be faced with the possibility of an extra $1 billion or $1J billion in the form of supplementary estimates following presentation of the blue book. What the people of Canada need from the government is the assurance that this will not happen, that when the reduced estimates are presented they will not be substantially augmented by supplementa-ries before the end of the next fiscal year. In my opinion such an assurance would have a great effect in restoring the atmosphere of reason and confidence which the people of the country so badly need at this time.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know how the Kennedy round tariff negotiations are going to hit our economy. Are we going to reduce our tariffs and then see what the reaction of the United States, our biggest competitor, will be? Are we going to get our feet in and then not be able to get them out before we are bitten?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I give some reassurance to the hon. gentleman before he begins elaborating on this point. The resolutions that will be brought before the house next week are the result of a negotiation between Canada, the United States and other members of GATT. These are multilateral arrangements which we and the United States are bound to honour, and if we do not honour them then there are penalties involved.


Philip Bernard Rynard: We would all like to see tariffs cut so that there would be free trade, but we know that this may hurt some of our Canadian industries and this causes me a great deal of concern. What proposals are there for dealing with underdeveloped countries? For instance, they manufacture certain goods, they are hard up for money and we have to keep giving them assistance in one form or another. Is there any plan whereby we would be able to accept their goods on a preferential basis and in turn sell them the goods we make?
Another point which bothers me is the position of factories and industries which have come from the United States to designated areas in Canada but which have their parent organizations in the United States. I realize that for every $1 million we put up they put up $4 million, and I support this

program because it is a good thing. However, what will be the situation with respect to tariffs on the goods they produce and on the goods their United States counterparts produce? Will the reduction of tariffs mean a cut-back in the products produced by American subsidiaries operating in Canada? I know of one industry which said it would employ 600 people in Canada. Now it has decided to employ only 200 because its parent company in the United States is turning out the same product.
I am also concerned about the fact that Canadians are taxed about 35 per cent compared with the 30 per cent payable by citizens of the United States. Further, our productivity is 35 per cent lower than that of the United States and wages in the United States are about 32 per cent higher. How are these things going to be ironed out through changes in tariffs?


Mr. Pugh:: With respect to the Kennedy round, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal of uneasiness in regard to fair market value for duty purposes in the fruit and vegetable industry. The arrangements under which we operated previously did not take into account cost of production in the country of origin. Fruit and vegetable tariffs were based on average imports to Canada over a period of years. If we start taking the cost of production in the country of origin as the basis for duty what bothers me is that when imports to Canada are harmful to Canadian producers it is almost impossible to find out whether they actually represent the dumping of goods in Canada.
If the duty is to be based on fair market value it will be almost impossible to stop the damage being done once imports start coming in. It takes very little to depress the price of fruit and vegetables. Even a threat of imports will sometimes do it. In manufacturing the flow of goods is more normal, but fruit and vegetable imports are an end of the year operation and they can hit our industry extremely hard. I would appreciate any remarks the minister would care to make on the protective measures that he intends to incorporate into Canadian legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simcoe East asked me questions about the Kennedy round. These could be more appropriately asked when the resolutions are before the house but perhaps I might make one or two general comments.
November 2, 1967

The underdeveloped countries of the world engaged in this negotiation and in so far as the tariff cuts related to products that they export it was valuable to them. In addition, however, the underdeveloped countries of the world have been making proposals, particularly in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, UNCTAD, for preferential arrangements. These proposals have been under discussion, not in the Kennedy round and not specifically within GATT but within this new organization.
As for the tariffs that apply to American subsidiaries, Canadian tariffs apply generally to all kinds of enterprises whether they are owned in Canada, in the United States or elsewhere. My general assessment of the Kennedy round is that it is of very great net benefit to industry as a whole, although of course there will be particular industries that will be adversely affected. This I have said from time to time, and in due course the government will be bringing forward some suggestions as to how assistance might be given to such industries to enable them to move into areas of industry where opportunities have been enlarged by the Kennedy round.
* (4:20 p.m.)
The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary asked about the fair market value for duty purposes on fruits and vegetables. I would prefer to answer that question when we deal with the budget resolutions where this matter would be more appropriately considered and when I will have with me the Minister of National Revenue who is more concerned with the administration. I am concerned with the law and he is concerned with the administration. As the hon. member knows, both of us are involved in this question and I think it would be more satisfactory if I dealt with it later. However, I have taken note of his remarks.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister for some reassurance. Does he think that any changes contemplated will be less beneficial to Canada than is the case under the legislation now in effect? I am referring specifically to fruit and vegetables.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only say that in these negotiations we have tried to make everything of more benefit to Canada. But whether everyone in every industry will agree, I am not certain. Certainly the attempt was made to enlarge the opportunities for Canadian industry. I cannot say that everybody will be
Supply-Finance
satisfied. At any rate, the changes being proposed will be before the house very shortly, when there can be a general discussion of this matter.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister a question with regard to the possible effect of the imposition of import quotas by the United States. Would that be a contravention of the Kennedy round agreement? The reason I ask the question is that I have had correspondence with Washington and my correspondent, who has been covering the senate hearings on the first piece of such legislation, reported that while it has been headed off at the pass there is a mass of other bills in the hopper to much the same effect, any one of which might slip through at some time when people are not watching carefully. I wondered whether they could go through and not be in contravention of the Kennedy round agreement.


Mitchell William Sharp: In general, Mr. Chairman, I should think they would be in contravention of that agreement. If they have not been negotiated with us or other countries concerned, any changes that are made which are not in accordance with our agreements would be in contravention of an undertaking made by the United States. I think that is the general answer I must give. I am hopeful, however, that most of the threats to the Kennedy round, or most of the threats to take action which is contrary to the undertakings of the United States government, will not be realized. The information that we have is that since the United States government has made these agreements it will do everything in its power to see that they are observed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mint-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,100,000.
Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, perhaps before I start to lay out what I presume to be the scope of this vote I should get a ruling from the Chair. The vote concerns the Royal Canadian Mint and thus deals with our currency. Therefore, presumably the protection of the value of our currency is also relevant to this vote. It is on that basis that I should like to proceed to discuss the threats to the value of our currency which have been emerging in recent months and which have caused so much anxiety to the minister and members of the Canadian public. I see the minister

November 2, 1967
Supply-Finance
looking thoughtful and I wonder whether he is going to raise a point of order on which you could rule, Mr. Chairman, before I proceed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I thought that some member of the house would be tempted to raise a very broad argument based on the fact that the Royal Canadian Mint makes our currency. I should point out to the committee that the Royal Canadian Mint makes only the silver and nickel coinage that serves for hand-to-hand transactions, but the great majority of the currency is of course in the form of bills which are not made by the Royal Canadian Mint. Moreover, the Royal Canadian Mint has no responsibility as such for the stability of the currency. It is concerned only with the making of coins and not with the preservation of the value of the currency. For that reason alone, Mr. Chairman, I would say it would be a very farfetched argument to base a speech on general financial policy upon the institution that is instructed by parliament to grind out the coins.


Colin Cameron: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that while it is perfectly true, as the minister says, that the mint produces only a certain proportion of our currency, nevertheless it is part of our currency and it seems to me that a discussion of the protection of the value of that currency would be in order here. For that reason I propose to make reference to the speech of the governor of the Bank of Canada, who is obviously very much concerned about the maintenance of the value of our currency and made a speech just yesterday in Winnipeg on this score. In fact, one might say that the governor of the Bank of Canada has joined the baying at the heels of the unfortunate Minister of Finance, suggesting in more, shall I say, gentle and muted terms than some others that the government's policies of expenditure are threatening the value of the Canadian currency.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, may I rise on the same point of order that I raised at the beginning today, and really to ask your guidance. I pointed out that there have already been several opportunities to discuss financial policy and that several more will be arising immediately. It is for this reason, and not only because the Royal Canadian Mint is not a very safe foundation upon which to base such a broad argument, that I appeal to the Chair and to hon. members, since they have so little time left to discuss many other

departments that have not yet had an opportunity of defending themselves in the house, and point out that it would be a better use of the time of the house if the discussion were to be limited to the obvious intention of the items before us.
We have devoted a day to the Department of Finance. We have had a budget debate. We still have the budget resolutions to consider, upon which a discussion of this kind would be much more in order. There will be another opportunity soon to discuss this whole matter. I appeal to hon. members as well as to the Chair. If hon. members really believe what they say, that they are being unduly restricted in their discussion of other matters that are still before us, I ask them to limit their remarks to the particular items that are here.


The Deputy Chairman:: I notice that the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands is not rising in his place and I gather, therefore, that he does not want to pursue this point.


Colin Cameron: I do not intend to pursue it, Mr. Chairman.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, as the minister knows, I have been interested in the production by the mint of centennial coinage. I have been assured that the mint is running full blast and grinding out centennial coins. In answer to an argument I raised at ten o'clock the other night I was assured that the mint was working to its full capacity producing these coins and sending them out through the regular channels all across Canada. I have received a number of letters over the past few months, ever since I raised this question last spring, from people asking where all these coins are that are being produced and are, we are told, being farmed out all over the country.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
One simply cannot go into a bank and get a silver dollar, and many Canadians want them. They are not in normal currency use but are wanted as keepsakes of the Canadian centennial year. One always has the opportunity of writing to the crown and asking for a set, but many people do not want to do that because they just want to get a silver dollar. I understand that the 50 cent piece cannot be obtained at all.


Mr. Bell (Carleion):: With this government people cannot afford one.
November 2, 1967


David Vaughan Pugh: One would think that in view of the fact the dollar is only worth about 50 cents there would be plenty around. Without any levity at all I should like to ask the minister once again if there is going to be any production of centennial coinage after January 1 or are we going to revert to the old familiar coins produced in 1966? I should also like to ask whether there is going to be distribution of any more silver dollars and 50 cent pieces.
Here in the east there appear to be a great many more silver coins of 25 cent value and less but certainly the centennial coinage project, which I admit was a good one, has fallen far short of requirements. There should have been a direction that this currency be distributed quickly throughout Canada. I first recognized the situation when I found I could not get any centennial coins in the west. The minister suggested there had been some fault in distribution. That was in June and any fault should have been corrected quickly. The minister indicated that shipments of new coins this year took exactly the same form as last year, but he did not tell me whether the shipments of new coins also contained old coins of the type available prior to 1967.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, I can assure the house that there has been an enormous demand for our coinage and particularly for silver dollars and 50 cent pieces. These are no longer being produced for ordinary use. They are being produced in sets which are sold mainly for numismatic purposes. They are no longer being produced for use by the public because the price of silver has gone up to such an extent it would no longer be economic to do so.
Let me give hon. members some figures as to actually how many silver dollars have been distributed this year. I will give the figures in relation to places from which the distributions have been made. In regard to silver dollars, and these are in dollar value, being the same, the figures are: Winnipeg, $249,000; Regina, $287,000; and Calgary, $424,000; Vancouver, $769,000; Toronto, $1,800,000; and Montreal, $1,500,000. A great many silver pieces have in fact been circulated. I am not surprised that it is very difficult to get them. I have no special privileges in this respect but my bank manager the other day asked me if I would like to have one as a memento and I took him up on his offer.


David Vaughan Pugh: Would you name the bank?
Supply-Finance


Mitchell William Sharp: To give the house an indication of the demand for other forms of currency I will give the figures for 25 cent pieces, and I refer to 1967 centennial coins. In Winnipeg the amount was $145,000, Regina, $308,000; Calgary, $372,000; Vancouver, $254,000; Toronto, $554,000 and Montreal, $1,400,000.
To show how much greater the demand was over last year, the Montreal figure of $1,400,000 compares with $355,000 for last year. That is some indication of the enormous demand there has been for coins. I am quite sure it is related somewhat to the fact that there is a special centennial issue. In any event it is not the intention to continue the centennial issue for ordinary purposes beyond the end of this year. Of course, orders put in by dealers and people who want to buy them for numismatic purposes will be filled.


David Vaughan Pugh: I should like to ask one more question in this regard. The minister stated that because the cost of silver had gone up the cost of producing the Canadian silver dollar had also increased, making it impractical to put these coins into general production. Is it the intention of the government to continue producing a silver dollar for general use or is this to become a collectors' item? I am referring to 1968 and thereafter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, as I have already announced it is our intention to have nickel coinage as soon as possible. However, as has been pointed out by some members, there are problems relating to vending machines. In order to bridge the gap we have issued some of the smaller coins in a 50-50 silver-copper form. As I have said, those coins will eventually, although one cannot tell the difference now, become somewhat yellower looking than the silver coins issued up to that time. Whatever form of coin we issue in 1968, we will discontinue the 1967 design. Even if we continue to mint some silver-copper coins they will revert to the pre-1967 design and the centennial issue will be unique as such. We do not propose to issue dollar and 50 cent pieces until 1968 when we will issue nickel coins. This will be authorized by the amendment to the Currency, Mint and Exchange Fund Act which was placed before the house the other day.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to make any inquiries of the minister as I realize he is perhaps not in a position to make specific announcements about some of these matters. However, I should like to put

November 2, 1967
Supply-Finance
on record some suggestions about the 1968 coinage.
Let me say at the outset that I understand that both in the United States and Canada it is impossible to predict the demand for coins. On one occasion I understand some consultants were engaged in the United States to advise its treasury department as to how it should gear its production to meet the expected demand. The advice they gave resulted in the production of about 150 per cent fewer coins than were actually demanded. I am sure the same situation exists in Canada. No one seems to be able to say what forces come into play at any given time which soak up the coins produced and distributed.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
With respect to what we usually refer to as the silver dollar I should like to ask the minister to consider, if it is not too late, the minting of a silver dollar with a 50 per cent silver content as a special item, perhaps with a special design on it if there is sufficient time to do so. I understand that next year will be an important anniversary of the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mint and this would be a good way of commemorating that event. I suggest that such a dollar, even if made with the 50 per cent copper-nickel alloy that is used now in dimes and quarters, be produced in time for next year and sold by the mint as a special item, in the form of what we loosely call a prooflike dollar in collectors' idiom, for a couple of dollars a piece. I am sure this would result in a number of these coins being purchased by collectors while none of them would actually be in circulation in the business world. As a result we would have two dollars, one nickel and one half silver, with two different values. So far as I know, none of the proof-like dollars issued as single dollars in past years has ended up as currency. They have all been retained as collectors' items and are issued in a special sealed pliofilm holder.
I think that the setting of a price of $2 or thereabouts for such a coin would allow numismatists to add to the series of dollars with a silver content and would be a way of celebrating the anniversary of the mint. There is another reason which might appeal to the minister in his intensive search for income for the treasury. This would be a profitable undertaking for the mint which would not only make money from minting these dollars but also from their sale as collectors' items. I think that the practice of circulating such coins in a sealed pliofilm

holder should be continued in the future because this would result in a continuity of items for collectors and would also bring profit to the mint.
I do not particularly wish to have an answer from the minister at this time because the decision would depend on the availability of silver and on whether or not it should be used in coins at all. I believe that we should be able to predict within reasonable bounds on the basis of past experience how many proof-like silver dollars might be required and sold, and we should purchase the silver in advance at its present price of $1.90 an ounce. There is every indication that silver will continue to increase in price in view of its high consumption for space activities in the United States.
The minister is well aware of these facts. However, I wished to make these comments publicly and to expand on what I have written in a letter to him so as to impress upon him the necessity of making a decision in this matter and announcing it at the earliest possible moment in the interests of the mint and of the business community.


James Ernest Pascoe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to address a question to the minister as a followup to the question asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. The minister has said that 287,000 silver dollars were shipped to Regina for distribution. Has any arrangement been made for the distribution of these dollars across the province or are they intended only for Regina? I understand there is a great scarcity of them throughout Saskatchewan. I have received many letters with regard to this matter, as has the hon. member for the Okanagan Boundary.
At the same time I hope the minister will answer another question. I have noticed in different souvenir shops both here and in Regina that special mint sets containing a gold $20 piece which were being sold for $40 are now on sale for $72.50. Could the minister tell us the source of these supplies in view of the fact that it is so difficult for individuals to get these sets?


Mitchell William Sharp: The distribution of coinage is made through the banks which fulfil the needs of their customers. The Bank of Canada ensures that they are made available at various points. The amount available to Regina is presumably the amount that is available for distribution throughout the area served from Regina city.
November 2, 1967

Supply-Finance


James Ernest Pascoe: They were sent by the Bank of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is right. I am quite sure that under the present circumstances the distribution of these silver dollars must have been very difficult because of the enormous demand for them. I gave the figures to show that in fact very large quantities have been distributed. The sets are on sale at the mint which intends to fill all orders as they are received. This is a profitable business for the mint which will continue to supply these sets until the demand is satisfied. Of course, there is no way of preventing people from paying more for these sets than the price for which they would get them from the mint.


Mr. Mongrain:: I have a single question for the minister. A few minutes ago the minister indicated there has been a great increase in the sale of coins in Montreal. Has the minister any definite indication that this was due to Expo '67?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Chairman. I think that business has been very good in this country, as the government has pointed out on a number of occasions, and a great deal of coinage is necessary to finance it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to tell the minister that I have received complaints similar to the ones about which the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre spoke. Several people have written to me and said they were unable to get these sets. Is there a possibility that a racket is being established in this connection? Why are these people not able to get the sets? These are people who simply want a set for their own collection.


Mitchell William Sharp: The mint has filled an enormous number of orders and it is still accepting them. I do not know whether any racket is involved but I would doubt it very much.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am not suggesting a racket on the part of the mint.


Mitchell William Sharp: Certainly not on the part of the mint. The mint does its best to ensure a fair distribution by restricting the number of sets it supplies to any particular individual until such time as the demand is satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
e (4:50 p.m.)
The following items were agreed to:
Royal Canadian Mint-
30b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $700,000.
35. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $150,000.
Municipal development and loan board-
45. Administration, $75,000.
Special-
50. Payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years to the government of each Commonwealth Caribbean country or territory of an amount which in respect of each such year is equal to the lesser of
(a)	the amount of customs duties payable and collected on raw sugar imported into Canada from that country or territory during the calendar year ending in the fiscal year; or
(b)	the amount determined by the Minister of Finance to be that country's or territory's pro rata share of an amount that would be equal to the customs duties payable and collected on 275,000 metric tons of raw sugar imported during the calendar year referred to in paragraph (a) from the Commonwealth Caribbean countries or territories;
estimated amount required for the current fiscal year, $2,200,000.
L40. To provide for the purchase, acquisition, and holding by the Minister of Finance of securities issued by the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition pursuant to subsection 1 of section 12 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act and to subsequently dispose thereof, $20,000,000.
L40a. To provide for the purchase, acquisition, and holding by the Minister of Finance of securities issued by the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition pursuant to subsection 1 of section 12 of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act and to subsequently dispose thereof, $10,000,000.
Administration-
4b. Grant to the endowment fund of the Vanier institute of the family-L'institut Vanier de la famille, $533,021.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $1,271,000.
Item agreed to.
AUDITOR GENERAL'S OFFICE 1. Salaries and expenses of office, $2,217,000.
Richard Albert Bell: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he shares the views which were expressed the other day by his colleague the Secretary of State with regard to the Auditor General?

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman would have to inform me of the views of the Secretary of State. I may have missed one of her utterances.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maurice Rinfret: This concludes the estimates of the Department of Finance for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968. We will now consider the estimates of the Department of Justice.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $13,513,800.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, as hon. members know, the estimates of the Department of Justice were examined by the standing committee on justice and legal affairs on June 27 and June 29. The standing committee examined the main estimates of the department and its report is tabled. I refer to pages 3 and 4 of the minutes of proceedings and evidence, No. 3, dated June 29, 1967. I doubt that anything I said before the standing committee bears repetition here. I am, therefore, prepared to deal with any questions hon. members care to put to me in this connection.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, in opening my remarks on the estimates of the Department of Justice I am sure that my colleagues would join me in congratulating the minister. This is the first time we have had an opportunity of congratulating him upon his appointment. I believe all of us like to see a young man get such an important portfolio. Of course, I believe it has to be thoroughly understood that when the department was divided there was not a large degree of responsibility left with the Department of Justice compared with the responsibility the department had previously.
The main responsibility of the department, of course, is the administration of justice itself. I want to deal with three points and I should like the minister to give some answers. Before doing so I should like to say a few preliminary words concerning the procedure on estimates. When I spoke on the estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration I said that I was one of those who looked with some scepticism on the new rule which applies the guillotine to

the consideration of estimates. When one asks the minister important questions about his department, the new rule allows no time for answers. The new gambit is to say, "I could not help it, the time ran out." Then the minister writes letters to various members and those letters are published in the newspapers. Hon. members are then able to read the answers in the newspapers but there are no further questions or explanations.
If this method is going to continue, and I cannot see any way it can be avoided if these rules remain, then so far as I am concerned the real function of the opposition to examine government expenditures is gone. After all, I think the main function of the opposition is to scrutinize every expenditure carefully and get answers from the various ministers. We have failed in our attempts to get the answers on these estimates. When the clock strikes ten tonight the guillotine will fall, since this is the last day for estimates. It will not matter whether ministers have answered questions with regard to expenditures or not; we will just start all over again next year.
So far as I am concerned, these rules really usurp the power of the opposition. I am one who has said privately and in the house that I am against this gagging of the opposition. When you take away the function of the opposition to scrutinize government expenditures you take away the power of the opposition. If we cannot carefully scrutinize all expenditures of the various departments we may as well lock the doors of parliament. Parliament is dead and democracy has actually been destroyed.
Following those remarks I want to deal with three subjects this afternoon. The first is the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court of Canada. The second is a review of the Criminal Code and why it should be effected. The third is the important matter of the administration of justice and the increase in crime in Canada.
The first point I want to deal with is the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. When the Exchequer Court was set up it was set up as a special federal court. It was felt that it should have a special jurisdiction because the other courts were either too busy or not capable of doing the job. What is that special jurisdiction? Apart from practically all matters that affect the crown, the main jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court is in reference to expropriation cases and tax appeals. I want to deal for a few moments with the expropriation jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court.
November 2, 1967

First of all, it is true the Exchequer Court does meet in various places across the country. However, all applications with reference to any matter that is going to go to trial are generally heard in Ottawa.
Let us consider what happens in expropriation cases. For some reason, generally a public work, the crown takes over certain land owned by a citizen of this country or by a company in this country. Then there is always a period during which the crown negotiates a price for the property. If the crown is unable to negotiate a price, then generally the citizen has to commence the action. In my opinion, this is wrong. The onus should be on the crown. If the crown has expropriated land and cannot come to an agreement with the citizen as to the value of that land, then surely the cost of initiating that action should be on the powerful state rather than on the individual.
I am going to deal with a particular case with which I had some experience. It lasted a considerable length of time and came before the Exchequer Court. The crown offered these people approximately $13,500 for about 60 acres of land near Lake Louise. The three people concerned were between 70 and 80 years of age and were unable to come to grips with the crown with regard to a price for their land. They were never notified when the expropriation took place. All that happens is that the government-this is not an attack on this particular government -passes an order in council and the plans of the land plus the order in council are then filed in the land titles office. The crown is then the owner in fact and in law, unless there is something wrong with the procedure. Finally, the citizen finds out he has lost his land and he tries to negotiate. If he does not take the price the crown offers, then he has to prove the value of the land. He has to hire appraisers, and they do not come at a dime a dozen. They are highly skilled, high-priced people.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
If a person loses land which happens to be his only possession and he has no other assets or money behind him, he has to take the price offered by the crown. His only alternative is to find someone who will lend him money to finance a lawsuit against the crown.
In the particular case I am referring to these people had to get an appraiser who understood the value of land in the national park-I am not going to get into that matter-and it cost between $5,000 and $7,000 to
Supply-Justice
get the land appraised. Then three or four applications followed, each of which called for the litigants and lawyers to go to Ottawa from Calgary. The distance by car is 2,600 miles and by air about 2,000 miles, so I am sure the minister will have sympathy for this sort of difficulty.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, the crown refused to produce the director of the park for Examination for Discovery and so counsel had to make an application to a judge and obtain an order to force the crown to produce the director. This application had to be argued in Ottawa, as I say. After the director of parks was produced for discovery he refused to answer some 187 questions put to him. As everyone knows, an examination for discovery is an examination of an officer of a company or of the crown by the other side to the suit.
Following this refusal counsel again had to go to the judge and get an order that the director of parks answer the questions. That was done. Counsel then had to get an order to settle the issue under the new rules of the court. These rules are more like the British rules, not so streamlined as the rules in Alberta that govern the Supreme Court trial division. This all added to the expense.
In most cases, Mr. Chairman, the litigant will withdraw before he finally gets to court simply because he cannot afford the cost. However, if he does take an expropriation case to trial he has to find an appraiser, which as I said in this particular case cost $7,000, and go through all these procedural matters.
I am not blaming the crown for all of the delay in this case, but there was considerable delay. Under the new rules that have been drawn up litigants are now required to file a certain kind of pleadings. However, the two sides have to settle the issue and this is narrowed down by another application. Finally the matter comes on for trial.
To illustrate why the litigants in this case had to have their own appraiser I point out that the final judgment awarded-the matter has been settled and the judgment paid so I can discuss it now-the sum of $85,167.53 for one parcel of land, $8,131.73 for another parcel, $3,696.24 for another parcel and $14,982.78 for the fourth parcel. To be fair, there is some interest involved in these figures and the judgment awarded approximately $96,000. However, if the litigant had taken the offer made by the crown he would have ended up with $13,500.

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice
As I say, Mr. Chairman, the litigant had to fight, and it was quite a fight. The crown hired several appraisers. It does not matter to them how much they spend to beat a citizen. They hired a Mr. Robinson of Calgary and he came up with an amazingly high figure. I know what his figure was. They also hired appraisers in the Department of Transport and another appraiser in another department. What figures did they produce at the trial, Mr. Chairman? They came up with $20,000 instead of $85,000, which includes interest, for the first parcel. Actually the principal amounted to $55,000, so there was a difference of $35,000. They recommended $5,000 for a small parcel, $2,400 for another parcel, and $5,800 for the fourth parcel. Their total offer was $33,200 at trial, there having been all this delay, expense and frustration.
When you are a lawyer fighting the crown, Mr. Chairman, let me tell you you are really fighting. Remember that the Exchequer Court is a court set up for the crown; let us make no mistake about that. Therefore my first recommendation is that the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court should be reviewed. I have always maintained that we are overgoverned and that we should make some cuts in our expenditure in governing Canada, and likewise we have too many courts. There is no reason why the high trial courts in the provinces, to which are appointed as judges some very able lawyers, should not have the jurisdiction that the Exchequer Court has in the matter of expropriations.
What would be the advantage of this, Mr. Chairman? First of all, the judges in the provinces have more appreciation of the local geography and the people of the province and more understanding of the circumstances than do the judges of a court that sits in a high and mighty place here in Ottawa. Therefore I would hope that this new and youthful Minister of Justice will review the jurisdiction of that court.
Many great counsels throughout the country whom I dare not name have said to me over and over again that in tax cases, another matter within the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court, it is very difficult to succeed in the Exchequer Court, which I repeat is a court set up for the crown. It is also expensive to go to this court.
Why do I say that the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court should be reviewed and certain aspects of it transferred to the high courts of the provinces. First of all, it would save expense. Lawyers will not have to travels 2,500 miles across Canada to plead

clients' applications and cases. The litigant himself would also be saved the expense of coming a long distance for the trial.
I want to be fair to the Exchequer Court and to say that when the judges, particularly the president of the court, became seized with the matter they did everything they could to cut costs and to have the trial held in Calgary. Nevertheless, all the applications had to be heard in Ottawa and the litigation was too expensive.
When dealing with lawyers employed by the Department of Justice, Mr. Chairman, it is much more difficult to get down to the issues than when dealing with lawyers for firms engaged in private enterprise.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I simply want to ask the hon. member for Bow River whether he is advocating the abolition of the Exchequer Court and making the superior court of each province the court of final appeal? If so, with respect to what kind of cases? Does he mean only those cases which normally come before the Exchequer Court at the present time?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My answer to that question is yes, Mr. Chairman, in some fields. I would want to look at this question very closely. I have thought it through and talked to many lawyers, and I think the Canadian Bar Association should review the matter. But so far as expropriation cases are concerned, my answer would be "absolutely yes". The court of appeal in each province could review the case and if the litigants were not satisfied and the amount in issue was large enough, over $10,000, they could go to the Supreme Court of Canada.
That brings me to my next point, Mr. Chairman. If a litigant is not satisfied with the decision of the Exchequer Court, what happens then? I will tell you what happens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, before the hon. member goes to his next point could I ask him a question? The hon. member mentioned the difficulty of dealing with the lawyers of the Department of Justice. I do not think he had finished that point when another hon. member asked him a question. Could he give a supplementary explanation of that matter?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not say that I personally had had this difficulty. I said that in
November 2, 1967

dealing with others I had found this experience. But when you are dealing as a member of one enterprise with a member of another enterprise, two lawyers who are free enterprisers in the same city, you are able to make decisions over the telephone and reach expedient agreements. The lawyers in the Department of Justice work under a great disadvantage. They are always responsible to some other person and cannot act or conduct their affairs as an average lawyer can when dealing with a local lawyer.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
You will find when you get into the higher courts, and I have been in the high courts of the provinces, that the higher the court is the simpler the procedure and the better the quality of justice. In the Supreme Court of Canada you will find the greatest grace in the judges. I am not being critical, but the department's lawyers do not expedite matters as quickly as outside lawyers would. To illustrate what I mean let me say that I wrote to the department of northern affairs over two months ago with respect to some land. They said, "We must refer this to the Department of Justice". It was a matter in which Mr. James Boyce of Banff was interested. I have yet to get a reply. I might have to wait for a year. We are told that they have a great volume of work to do or that the matter must be strained through many fingers before an answer can be given.


An hon. Member:: They are not efficient.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They are not efficient. The department's lawyers have to be very careful. They cannot say as an outside lawyer would say, "Look Eldon, I think this will happen; let us take a look at this thing." Within 24 hours of writing you have the answer. You are lucky to get an answer from the department or from any crown agency within 24 days. Delays like that lead to frustration.
Let me come to my next point. If you are not satisfied with an Exchequer Court decision you may want to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. There is one law for the rich and one law for the poor, and this has never been more apparent than today. You must pay the court reporter at so much per line or so much per page. In the instance I am thinking of where land use was in question and a town was to be built on a tract of land, it was thought that an appeal might help. When the cost of appealing was looked
Supply-Justice
into the appellant said, "We cannot go on; we have no more money."
Let me tell hon. members what it would have cost to buy the evidence, forgetting about the lawyers entirely. The cost of printing the exhibits for the Supreme Court of Canada would have been $2,464. The pleadings would have cost $430 to print and the proceedings at trial were estimated to cost over $2,000. Altogether we had to raise $4,894 to buy the evidence before we could even proceed with the appeal. When they heard of these amounts the appellants said, "We have heard enough." That illustrates what I mean when I say there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. Those without means cannot litigate against the all-powerful state. Those who legislate in parliament and those who draft legislation do so keeping the interests of the crown uppermost in their mind. The poor citizen, the litigant, has everything stacked against him. The onus is on him to buy the evidence. To fight the sort of case I have just spoken of would cost $25,000. I say that the ordinary citizen cannot afford to litigate in the Exchequer Court and cannot afford to go to the Supreme Court of Canada if he is not satisfied with the Exchequer Court's decision.
In all seriousness let me say to the minister that I am glad to have this opportunity, as chairman of the justice committee of the Conservatives, to speak of these matters. The jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court must be reviewed. The fees of court reporters must be reviewed. It cost so much a line or so much a page to buy the evidence of any proceedings recorded in the Exchequer Court.
The criminal courts are administered by the provinces. Judges are appointed by the federal government and paid by the federal government. Over the years a system of legal aid has been evolved whereby those who need legal help are able to obtain it. The attorney general of a province will buy the evidence of a preliminary hearing for someone who cannot afford to buy it. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that a volume of evidence as thin as this volume which I hold in my hand will cost you from $90 to $100? Not only will the attorney general buy the preliminary hearing evidence but he will also appoint a defending lawyer. That is all very well in criminal cases, but where is the money to come from for those who want to fight the all-powerful crown agencies? What a difference there is in the chances of those who, facing criminal proceedings, have the means to gather evidence and to hire their

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice
own detectives to fight the all-powerful crown.
The law is the same for everybody but the cost of presenting a case at law means that the rich have an advantage over the poor. Take the instance of a man with a small company who disagrees with his tax assessment and takes his case before the Exchequer Court. Perhaps the whole matter rests on the interpretation of some unknown regulation he did not know about. He goes to the Tax Appeal Board, after which he appeals to the Exchequer Court. Unless he has money he must either pay the tax or face the consequences. Unless he has money he cannot take the matter higher. Obviously there is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
Let me give another instance that shocks me. In the Exchequer Court, for example, where a court reporter is employed-often you do not realize the court reporter is charging the litigant-you will be presented with an unexpected bill for half the cost of the evidence. That is authorized by some obscure rule. The district courts of Alberta, or supreme courts in some provinces, supply court reporters. The court pays for the reporter's cost for the trial. They are appointed to take the evidence. Clearly, reforms are needed with respect to the employment of court reporters. Again we see that there is a law for the rich and another for the poor.
My next point has to do with the Criminal Code. When the code was reviewed ten years ago Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, now of the Supreme Court of Canada-I think he was then chief justice of Saskatchewan-said that really only certain procedures had been reviewed. Our criminal laws are archaic and I shall deal with some of them in a few moments. The minister was most gracious with me when I spoke to him about setting up a committee of the house to look into this matter. I think all bar associations agree that we should take another look at the Criminal Code to see if we cannot streamline procedures and do away with some of those discriminations which deny justice to the poor while making it available to the rich. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what section 12 of the Criminal Code says? Laymen who read the section are shocked. It says:
Child under seven
No person shall he convicted of an offence In respect of an act or omission on his part while he was under the age of seven years.

[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As soon as a child reaches the age of seven years and one day he may be brought before the courts of this land, provided that he was aware of the nature and quality of the offence, and tried in the same way as adults are tried. Surely the laws of this nation should be set up in such a way that they do not apply to children in the same manner as they apply to adults. Take the famous Trus-cott case which involved a boy of 14. Then there have been other cases involving, as the department knows, children of 12, even children of seven years of age, including a boy so small that he could not be kept behind the bars. This is all because of an outdated, archaic section going back to the days when children worked in the mines.
We shall shortly be debating a bill with reference to capital punishment, but that is another matter. Let us consider the crime of murder which has now been divided into capital murder and non-capital murder. If it is capital murder, planned and deliberate, and the jury so finds, the sentence is hanging. Of course, such sentences have always been reviewed by the cabinet and, since this government came to office, commuted. But I am not going into that aspect. Then there is non-capital murder. When parliament was dealing with this matter it overlooked the fact, says the chief justice of our province, that the former crime of attempted murder was abolished. It is in a vacuum, so to speak. Is it an attempt to commit capital or noncapital murder? How can one tell? This, Mr. Chairman, demands further review and examination.
I know the Minister of Justice is paying attention. I have talked to him privately and I believe he knows the code must be reviewed. What about the law concerning insanity, the M'Naghten rule. The defence is twofold; it is said on behalf of the accused that either he did not know the nature and quality of his act, which is one defence, or that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong, which is the second defence. In the light of the fact that since the famous M'Naghten case our knowledge of psychology and psychiatry has advanced to such an extent as to give us far greater insight into the nature of human behaviour, surely it is time to bring some of this knowledge to bear on the law as it now stands as far as it governs the question whether the accused was insane or sane.
November 2, 19G7

What about suicide? A person can be charged with attempted suicide. But surely anyone who attempts to take his own life is mentally ill, suffering from some kind of depression. It is true that the courts are generally kind when dealing with these cases, but the law exists and we know what the sentence could be. What usually happens is that the person concerned is charged and taken to gaol. Remember, the person concerned is already ill and depressed. I see that my hon. friend from Athabasca agrees with me. He was a member of the R.C.M.P.; he knows that what I am about to say is correct. He has seen such people incarcerated, and if they are depressed when arrested how are they likely to feel when they are put in a cell? In practice the case is generally reviewed by a judge, the accused goes to a mental hospital and sentence is suspended. Nevertheless, in many cases the person concerned will have been found guilty of an indictable offence and there will be a record against him, preventing him from leaving the country.
What about bail? Again, there is one law for the rich and another for the poor. What usually happens is that a magistrate sizes up the circumstances and sets bail accordingly. If the accused does not have the wherewithal to pay it, he stays in gaol. In many cases the accused should never have been arrested in the first place. I am sure these people would appear at their trial. They may have gone off the rails; may be they have drunk too much. But if they are summoned they will appear. However, unless they get a counsel who can arranged for them to have a speedy trial it is possible for them to be kept in goal from July to September throughout the legal holiday before a judge is ready to hear the case. Recently this was the subject of comment in the Albertan after the accused in a case in which I was concerned did receive a speedy trial while others waited in gaol. I know that perfection cannot be expected, but one look at the bail system should be enough to convince us that it is a case of one law for the rich and another for the poor.
I intend now to mention a few other things which it seems to me are in need of remedy as I see the code through working with it. On summary conviction, in cases where a magistrate has absolute jurisdiction, it is possible to appeal to the district court and obtain what is called a trial de novo, that is, a brand new trial. But there are circumstances involved here which have always bothered me. Why should an appeal from a summary conviction be the most difficult appeal one to
Supply-Justice
perfect? Many possibilities of error or omission are attached to it. Notice of appeal must be filed and served within a time limit, a certain sum must be set aside for costs and so on, the crown must be served with notice within so many days. Failure in any one of these respects means that the case is "out", that it fails for lack of jurisdiction. Surely this section should be reviewed.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Maurice Rinfret: Does the committee give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Minister of Justice is no doubt in possession of these facts. The department is probably well aware of what I am saying. I make this case for an early review of the code. Let people with experience, knowledge and intelligence produce a new code to streamline our legal procedure and do away with discrimination-one law for the rich and another for the poor.
I was talking about the steps necessary to secure a trial de novo. Let me point this out. Suppose a man is charged with murder and found guilty. If he did not have a lawyer-in practice the court would appoint one-he could appeal to the court of appeal in any of the provinces simply by writing a letter and asking for the appeal. But the lower the court the tougher the procedure required. This is ridiculous. Hon. members may say a lawyer ought to know how to carry out this procedure. But what about a man who has been convicted and who cannot afford a lawyer? He cannot possibly be expected to be familiar with this process. Indeed, many young lawyers are worried about the procedure. They keep checking what they have done with their senior partners and asking: Am I right? They are concerned because they know that if they do not do everything perfectly, the case is out of court.
Again, expenses in connection with the appeal book are too high. In my own province the attorney general is co-operative. But this is not good enough. We must streamline the code to make it work for our citizens. Expenses generally are too high and the cost of court reporting is too high. Maybe it is time court reporters were paid entirely on a salary basis.
Supply-Justice

November 2, 1967
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I wish to deal now with one other point. Under the provisions of the code the police court records of young people are registered. A lad of 13 or 14 may get into difficulty and plead guilty; perhaps he has taken somebody's car to go for a joy-ride and pleads guilty to the theft of the car. Many of these pleas are made because the infant does not know his rights. Anyway, he then has a conviction for an indictable offence against him and the consequence is that when he grows up he cannot go to the United States. He may get a big scholarship to attend a university there. But what happens? He bounces into your office or my office, as members of parliament, but he cannot go if he has been convicted of an indictable offence. Surely the time has come in this nation, particularly on our one hundredth birthday, for some kind of reform. We must consider the pressures on youth today and do away with the keeping of records against youth for a long time, yes, even against adults when after a period of time they have proven themselves rehabilitated in society. This is another point that should be looked at and another reason why the code should be reviewed.
Here is another thing that happens. When a boy or young woman who has previously been convicted of an indictable offence comes before a magistrate and seeks bail, up steps a softspoken crown counsel to read out the record. He says that the boy was found guilty of assault at Western high school, he did this, and he did that. If the person involved has any record, up goes the bail. The price of justice rises. What has that to do with bail? The purpose of bail is that somebody will guarantee that a man will appear at the bar of justice on such and such a day to stand trial.
Another matter I wish to mention is the vagrancy section of the code. If any section is being misused it is this one. If the police are suspicious that a boy, girl, man or woman is guilty and they have no evidence, they can hold the person in jail even though they have no evidence. They are not supposed to do so, but they charge the person with the crime of vagrancy. They hold him for two or three days and hope that in that period they will get a confession from him. When they get a confession they have some evidence. Alternatively they will bring a little pressure to bear here and there and build up a case.
I would like to have a record of all instances in police courts across Canada

when a vagrancy charge was laid against a man or woman who was not even near the scene of the crime and the charge had to be withdrawn. If we are going to hold people on a holding charge let us tell them that it is a holding charge. Let us tell them the reason for it. Let us say: We have reason to believe you are mixed up in this affair and we shall hold you. But let us not call it vagrancy because a vagrant is a person found in a public street with no visible means of support. There are other definitions of vagrancy but that is beside the point. It is high time that this matter was reviewed.
I now wish to say a few words in reference to drugs. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Cartier has introduced a bill dealing with drugs because this means that the whole question will be reviewed. I am one of those who believe-and I said this the other day-that it would be easy to get headlines by saying narcotics have become a terrible menace for our young people. But I do not know that. There may be more use of drugs per capita, but surely when one reads the article written by a noted doctor in the United States, not published in the best magazine by any means, in which he talks about the difference between marijuana and narcotics, one comes to the conclusion that it is time we took a reasonable look at the Narcotic Control Act.
Is marijuana the same as other drugs such as heroin and so on? I am not going to take the time today to go into that question because it would take too long to refer to the difference, but scientists agree that a person does not become addicted to marijuana. That does not say for one minute that I believe young people should be using it. I think it is eroding the moral fibre of young people who are using it or even contemplating using it. Men in high places are saying that marijuana is no worse than alcohol or tobacco. Young people read such statements. They argue with their parents and say, "Some scientist says it is not dangerous so I am going to use it." That is bad propaganda.
This summer I defended three university scholarship students charged with using marijuana. The judge, a distinguished citizen of Calgary, said that they probably took it for kicks. I should mention that these students came from another country. If they had been charged with importing it and had sold some of it to their friends, the minimum sentence under the Narcotic Control Act would have been seven years. However, they were charged with possession and use.
November 2. 1967

I pleaded before the judge that they should be fined and not incarcerated because they wanted to go back and finish their term at university. I am not naming the university. But under the penalty section of the Narcotic Control Act our court of appeal has taken the position that on conviction a person cannot solely be fined. The judge must sentence him to some period in jail. In this case we had a very learned and understanding judge, because he has a family of his own. What did he do? He looked at the matter and said, "All right. If that is what the court of appeal says I will sentence them to one day in jail with a $500 fine, and as it is past noon they do not have to serve their one day." I do not know where the provision about it being past noon comes from but it is used. Basically, we got a fine for them instead of prison.
But do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? Counsel for the federal crown called the immigration department and said, "We now have three people in Canada who have been convicted of an indictable offence and we want them arrested under the Immigration Act." Air Canada was better than usual and we made a quick reservation and got them out of the country.
With regard to a student who is caught smoking marijuana, if we are going to make it an offence let us look at it from the point of view of education and re-education so that he will cease using it. If we are going to make it an offence let us amend the law so that it serves the kind of justice we expect and allows persons convicted to live within the institutions of our society with some kind of dignity.
One last thought, Mr. Chairman, with regard to corporal punishment. I have heard the hon. member for Vancouver East make excellent speeches on this subject and he will probably have something to say about it today. He was bringing this matter before the house long before I became a member. Some 15 or 20 years ago a royal commission dealt with the matter of corporal punishment and thought it was terrible. Here is what section 641 of the Criminal Code says in part:
Where a person is liable to be sentenced to be whipped, the court may sentence him to be whipped on one, two or three occasions within the limits of the prison in which he is confined.
A sentence of whipping shall specify the number of strokes to be administered on each occasion.
Have we not reached the time in our civilization when a man should not cause another man, for whatever he may have done, to be stretched out and brutally beat him in the
Supply-Justice
most sadistic fashion? Is it not time to review the details and wording of the Criminal Code? The Minister of Justice is a young man. If he can accomplish this job he will go down in history as one of the best ministers of justice, apart from politics. I am glad, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to deal with this point.
Before sitting down may I mention one last thought. Ex-R.C.M.P. Commissioner Harvison made a statement the other day. I do not think he is a reckless man. Over the years that I have practiced law I have been more often on the defence side than on the other side, and I have developed a tremendous respect for the R.C.M.P. I do not think there is a nation in the world that has a police force of which it can be more proud than we can be of the R.C.M.P.
Just a week or so ago ex-Commissioner Harvison said that American syndicate criminals are moving into Canada, into Vancouver, Montreal and other big centres. He said they have been doing this for a long time. In this respect I say that the administration of justice is a joint responsibility of the federal and provincial authorities. I ask the Prime Minister if he would set up a royal commission to find out what is going on in regard to corrupt bankruptcies, because there has to be some investigation carried out. I think Lafayette Payette was the name of the man who, because he dared to raise a question about a fraudulent bankruptcy, was found dead in the trunk of his car. This is syndicate crime.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We prosecute the poor girls and boys and men and women who take drugs. But what about the pushers? What about the fellows who are bringing these drugs into the country? The R.C.M.P. have done a terrific job in this respect. They have caught up with people who had several millions of dollars worth of drugs in their possession. These people are making money from the demoralization of our youth and older people. Let us investigate this problem in view of the commissioner's statement. Let us not play politics and say: This is not the way I would handle the matter. I say to the Prime Minister with the greatest respect-he is not here at the moment but I do not make anything of that-that we must do something to solve this extremely serious problem. The Minister of Justice is here. He is a member of the cabinet and I asked him to talk to his cabinet colleagues about it.

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
Is the minister going to sit idly by in the hope that the officials who administer his department will be more efficient tomorrow than they are today or is he going to be dynamic in this portfolio? Is he going to be an effective Minister of Justice who will look into this problem and get to the bottom of it? This is the kind of action we hope to get from a new Minister of Justice, because a new broom sweeps clean.
I have spoken longer than I should have, Mr. Chairman, but this is a very important subject. I should like to summarize the recommendations that I place before the minister. The jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court should be completely reviewed. A complete review should be carried out in the matter of appeals from the Exchequer Court to the Supreme Court of Canada. I recommend that the Criminal Code be reviewed now, not tomorrow. We must get away from some of these archaic laws which lay down age limits in regard to offences. We must get away from some of the archaic laws with respect to insanity, corporal punishment and attempted suicide. Many of the provisions of the Criminal Code were written under the old, ecclesiastical law. We need a code that fits present day conditions and mankind.
Let us consider the Narcotic Control Act. Let us not back away from amending the act because we may lose some votes if we take marijuana off the list of prohibited drugs. Most of us have families, no matter what position we hold in life, and our boys and girls are getting into difficulty. As a member of the Liberal party said the other day much better than I can, juvenile delinquency today seems to be moving into all strata of society. Let us enact laws that we can be proud of, which will help the youth of today and which will enable them to say later in life that our generation changed the law and gave it a greater degree of dignity. The laws we enact should be tools that serve society. Let us make sure, above all, that we appoint to the bench the very best men available.
Before this session began I noticed in the newspapers that the minister said he was going to talk to the Canadian Bar Association. This has some advantages and disadvantages. We have in the past done a pretty good job in appointing to the bench the very best men with wide experience. However, perhaps the time has now come when judges should receive special training in psychiatry and psychology so that when they hand out sentences they will know something about our youth. We have in this country judges
[Mr. Woolliams.l
who have never had a family. I am not being critical of that. Some of our judges have been involved in incorporated companies all their lives, and when they have to pass sentence on an accused they tell me it worries them. Perhaps it is time we set up special schools for judges. Let us become progressive and change some of our old laws that have outlived their usefulness.
I appreciate the committee having extended my time, particularly the Minister of Justice who has listened very carefully to my recommendations.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I should like to speak briefly on the estimates now before us. The remarks I desire to make follow exactly the theme of the previous speaker, namely, that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor. I admit I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot give the same kind of discourse as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. But over the years, because I have a great interest in the matter of penology, I have had the opportunity of interviewing hundreds of the inmates of our jails and penitentiaries. I have received correspondence from hundreds of inmates incarcerated all over the country. Very rarely a week goes by without my receiving a letter from an inmate of a penitentiary setting forth his problems and grievances.
It is absolutely heartbreaking to receive one of these letters, investigate the matter and find proof of what the previous speaker called a law for the rich and a law for the poor. I fully appreciate that there is in matters of justice split jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial authorities. However, we must recognize that although the provinces have jurisdiction in the administration of justice, a great many of our laws are made federally. We must also remember that the Minister of Justice appoints our judges. Therefore a responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister of Justice irrespective of the question of jurisdiction.
We ofttimes read of meetings of the bar associations across Canada and see what matters they discuss and the views they hold. We know that upon occasion there are meetings of magistrates and judges. I note that these meetings are often addressed by the attorney general of a province or, as a general rule, by the Minister of Justice. Therefore I am taking these few moments to say to the minister that, even though there is split
November 2, 1967

jurisdiction in these matters, I hope the minister will make his views known and will convey them to the judges, magistrates and those in the legal profession in the provinces in the hope that we may to a considerable extent get away from one law for the rich and another for the poor.
It is most disturbing when we find that individuals, juveniles or adults with no previous criminal record or even with a record, charged with a criminal offence for which they could be sentenced to several years' imprisonment if found guilty have not had, from the time of the charge being laid to conviction and perhaps appeal, one minute of legal aid. I have in the files in my office on the sixth floor of this building details of case after case of this sort. I have letters from people serving long terms of imprisonment in our penitentiaries who never had a lawyer from the time they were arrested until the time they were convicted.
We know that in the provinces there is free legal aid, but time after time we receive evidence that although application is made for legal aid these people do not necessarily get it. If their application for legal aid is refused they have to face the judge and the possible loss of years of freedom without having a lawyer to advise and assist them. It is wrong, despicably wrong, that a person faced with a charge, particularly a serious one, should have no legal assistance because he has no money. I believe that federally and provincially, individually and collectively, something has to be worked out in this regard in the name of justice whereby legal aid is supplied when the individual charged is not in a position to afford a lawyer, o (5:50 p.m.)
Another most important question is the difference in sentences. This matter has been spoken of in the house time after time by members of all parties, but for one reason or another nothing has been done to correct the situation. We find that even for the identical offence there is a terrific disparity in the sentences passed by magistrates and judges. This is definitely not fair. We find a law for the rich and a law for the poor within the same jurisdiction. This is an absolute disgrace which brings the name of justice into ill repute.
Not too long ago in the city of Vancouver a pawn-broker and his companies endeavoured to avoid the payment of $160,000 in income tax. He was charged and found guilty of trying to defraud the federal government of
Supply-Justice
this amount. He was fined $48,000 but there was no jail sentence. The kindly judge told this wealthy man who tried to defraud Canada that he would give him the time he needed to pay the fine.
During that same week in the city of Vancouver a hungry drifter tried to steal two cans of sardines valued at 35 or 40 cents. He was hauled into court, was found guilty and was sentenced to six months in jail. This hungry man who tried to steal two cans of sardines was sentenced to six months in jail but a fine, with no jail term, was imposed on a man who tried to defraud the government of $160,000.
This example can be repeated time and time again in Canada and I have many of them documented in my office. There is no question that there is a law for the rich and a law for the poor, and this is not only related to the fact that some can hire lawyers while others cannot. One's status in our society makes a difference. If you are wealthy and are found guilty of a crime you receive a fine without a jail term. If you are poor like the man who was charged with stealing two cans of sardines you are likely to receive six months in jail.
This situation should not be allowed to exist. I sincerely hope that the minister, newly in this portfolio, will recognize this fact and do everything he possibly can within his power and within his influence to correct this most miserable and despicable situation which now exists in Canada under the name of justice.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I would need three minutes only and I must admit that I will not always be in order but as members of the loyal opposition have, in the last two days, spoken freely on the subject that I want to raise and the Chair has been indulgent by allowing them to continue their remarks, I suppose that I will be treated with the same leniency.
First of all, I would like to make a short remark to commend the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) for what he just pointed out. He did not develop his thoughts because, I suppose, he did not want to take too much of the time of the house. He is so right that I feel bound to support his remarks and say: The minister is not at fault, evidently, but it is high time that legislation should be reviewed, so that there might not be laws for the poor and different laws for

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
the rich. The law is for the poor and the rich, and he is perfectly right.
Mr. Chairman, I am out of order but I noticed that the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams) spoke for 50 minutes.
The hon. member for Bow River is a lawyer and an extremely brilliant expert in criminal law for whom I have the greatest respect. He is a parliamentarian and a debater I would prefer to have on my side rather than against me. He is very effective in the way he conducts a debate. Therefore, I would not like my remarks to be taken as a breach of good manners; I am simply raising a matter of principle.
The standing orders stipulate that hon. members may speak for 30 minutes, but in the two years I have been here, no one has paid much attention to them I noticed. I would not object if three, four or five additional minutes were granted to those who have not finished stating their argument, although I think it could be done in one or two minutes, because anyone appearing on radio or television, where time is restricted, at a few seconds notice is cut down to half a minute without any consideration, because time must be limited.
I feel that the attitude of some members is illogical. For example, when I hear members of the opposition speak about the guillotine, I must say that I have always understood that standing orders, even if some provisions are temporary, had been passed with the approval of the leaders of all parties. Therefore, I cannot see how one can rightly say such a thing, unless one wants to stir up the electorate, or kid around, or give the public at large the wrong impression, which to my mind is akin to false pretences. I feel it would be dishonest to say that the guillotine will come down this evening. If the rule is not good, then the leaders of all the parties should meet and say: We are changing the rule, and that will be the end of that.
The same goes for limiting the speeches, Mr. Chairman. I too am opposed to that. The hon. member benefited from the fact that I was out of the house for a few minutes when he asked for the unanimous consent.
I appeal to all the members of the house and say this: Do standing orders exist? If they exist, why are they not adhered to? If the rules are no good, why are they not improved? But if we ourselves disobey the rules, we do not, as parliamentarians, set a very edifying example.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that-again, I should like it to be understood that I do not, in my remarks, necessarily refer to the hon. member for Bow River because I say that he is one of the parliamentarians whom I listen to with most pleasure; I could listen to him for hours, although I am a little blase as to-


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I was trying to see whether his remarks were in order; I do not think they are. Moreover, it is six o'clock and I think it would be wise not to make comments which might be found unpleasant.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: In any event, Mr. Chairman, I had finished.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being six o'clock, it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely private bill, notices of motions papers, and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: the second reading of Bill No. S-ll, respecting Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, the sole purpose of Bill S-ll is to ensure that chapter 21 of the statutes of 1965 will be deemed not to have expired or to have ceased to be in force after the thirtieth day of June, 1967, and to extend the expiry date to the thirtieth day of June 1969.
Hon. members may remember that this company was incorporated by a private bill that was passed in June of 1965 and, according to the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, the certificate to commence business must be issued by the superintendent of insurance within two years of the effective date of the charter; otherwise the charter expires and the company must be wound up. However, in December, 1966, a petition was filed, after consultation
November 2, 1967

with the superintendent of insurance, to extend the life of the charter for a further two years. The sole purpose of this bill is to extend the charter until June, 1969.
The reasons for this appear in Minutes No.
6 of the Senate standing committee on banking and commerce and in the speech made by Hon. Donald Cameron in the other place on Wednesday, June 14, when he moved second reading of the bill. I would commend this material to hon. members.
In essence the reason why the company did not apply for its certificate to commence business within two years was the tightening up of regulations within the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Bill S-9 which incorporated this company received royal assent in June of 1965 with the understanding that the company would not commence its business of insurance until at least $500,000 of its capital stock had been subscribed and that amount paid in advance together with a contribution as a capital surplus of $500,000.
The Principal Life Insurance Company is one of three companies controlled by Principal Holdings Limited and is composed of the following companies: First Investors Corporation Limited, Associated Investors of Canada Limited, Principal Savings and Trust Company, and the Principal Life Insurance Company. The company has its head office in Edmonton. It is entirely Canadian owned and its officers are all Canadians living in or around, Edmonton.
The Principal group actually controls assets of some $68 million as evidenced by the consolidated balance sheet of the company dated December 31, 1966. Since the incorporation of the company in 1965 there were a number of developments in the financial world which caused all governments to tighten up and raise their requirements of financial backing before permitting companies to go into business.
The effect of the tightening up of the regulations so far as the Principal Life Insurance Company is concerned can be explained by the following illustrations. One of the member companies of the Principal group is Principal Savings and Trust Company, incorporated with $250,000 of paid-up unimpaired capital. In the spring of 1966, amendments to the governing legislation by the province of Alberta raised this requirement to $500,000. The legislation provides that this requirement will be further increased by mid-1967 to $750,000.
Private Bills
The other two member companies of the Principal group, namely Associated Investors of Canada Limited and First Investors Corporation Limited, both dealing in investment savings certificates and operating in the province of Saskatchewan, were required by legislative changes made in that province in mid-1965 to increase the minimum required net worth to approximately one twentieth of the statutory reserves of the company. This is the value of the qualified assets according to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, less the statutory reserves and other liabilities. In order to qualify under the new standards in Saskatchewan, Associated Investors of Canada Limited required an additional $388,000 and First Investors required a further $112,000 making a total additional requriement of $500,000 additional capital.
The third factor was a change in the capital test under the trustees act of Alberta. In order to be an approved corporation under the amended act, the unimpaired paid-up permanent capital must be increased from $500,000 to $1 million.
The Principal group has been putting into effect these increased capital requirements and reserves. Therefore the $1 million that it had earmarked for the insurance company in 1965 has had to be put into the other funds in order to meet the statutory requirements. Having done so, it is now in a position to proceed within the next several months to apply for its certificate to commence business. It has also had to attend to a reorganization because of better control through computer equipment.
The Principal Life Insurance Company intends to write all kinds of life insurance, but it is to deal primarily with the group security that is attached to its savings certificates.
I have indicated to hon. members what is the purpose of this bill. I wish to point out again that the company is entirely Canadian owned and Canadian operated. The Principal group has been operating for 10 to 12 years in Edmonton and they have another associated company which operates in the United States. It may be of further interest that this group repatriated a Canadian investment company which had been bought by Americans and was repurchased by the new Canadian group in 1962. I am referring to Associated Investors of Canada, a company of which I have thought well and which had been sold, because of our rather odd estate tax laws, to American interests in 1959 or

November 2, 1967
Private Bills
1960 and was then repurchased by this group in 1962.
I commend this bill to hon. members. As we know, it will go to the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs for further discussion where, if members of the committee see fit, witnesses may be examined. However, witnesses have been examined in extenso before the committee of the other place and that evidence is available to hon. members.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, I have often voiced my misgivings about the incorporation of endless life insurance companies. I may say that my misgivings are increased when we find, as in this case and another case we had, that these life insurance companies are closely connected with other financial institutions such as mutual funds, trust companies and so on. I am particularly concerned at this time, Mr. Speaker, when we are undergoing very severe economic and financial strains in this country, about the investment policies of these private institutions to whom we grant the privilege of collecting the savings of the Canadian people.
As I pointed out the other day, there is right now a considerable outflow of Canadian savings from the country. This raises in my mind, sir, the question of just what effect that has had in promoting and creating the financial and economic difficulties over which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) is now scratching his head. There is, of course, a very close connection. A great deal of the troubles of the government and the minister stem from the necessity of adjusting domestic policies in the light of our balance of payments problem and because of our idiotic retention of the fixed exchange rate.
Because of our ill-advised agreement with the United States regarding the maintenance of a certain level of exchange reserves, our government and our financial and monetary authorities have very little room to manoeuvre. When on top of that we have a drain of capital from Canada in the form of investment outside the country, then the troubles of the government and the monetary authorities are compounded. I have no intention of trying to stop the second reading of this bill. It will get second reading. However, when the bill is before the committee on finance and economic affairs we should be given a very clear and honest picture of just where these funds are invested. I get somewhat

annoyed when economists tell me, as some of them have been telling me of late, that the level of investment has dropped badly and this has caused our trouble. When the money supply is rising, investment cannot be dropping. It may be changing its locale, and I suspect this is one of the reasons we are in trouble.
It is only two days ago that the Montreal Gazette pointed out in an editorial there is now a serious outflow of Canadian capital to the United States. In the opinion of the financial writer for that paper, this is one of the major components of our economic problems at this time. I should like to stress again, Mr. Speaker, what I have stressed in the past, the great danger of allowing this vital function in our econony, the pooling of the savings of the Canadian people, to be left in private hands. I had occasion a few months ago to speak about the investment policy of mutual open end funds with a man who is very closely involved with the investment policy of a large one as an officer of one of the major chartered banks. He was concerned about the investment policy and called it to my attention. He informed me that this could be duplicated right across the board with these trust investment funds. I say, therefore, it is a dangerous principle to allow private individuals to have control of pooling the savings of the Canadian people and deciding where they are going to be invested because direction of investment is another of the factors that creates economic and financial problems for the Canadian government.
I know, of course, that a government such as ours and an official opposition such as we have in this house are both wedded to a doctrinaire view of the economy which abhors the idea of this function being assumed by the public authority. Again I put in my plea which I make periodically, sir, for a complete change of attitude toward the control of the savings of the Canadian people. I urge that parliament should look with a very dubious eye on the continual expansion of the number of life insurance companies in this country. It is a fragmentation of the same pool of savings; you do not increase it at all. It cannot be considered for a moment that this proliferation of life insurance companies is likely to result in cheaper insurance for the policy-holders of Canada. On the other hand, there is every reason to suspect it will increase the cost because you add to the body of personnel who are engaged in selling life insurance policies
November 2, 1967



throughout the country. I plead with parliament and with the government to adopt a more reasonable method of pooling the savings of the Canadian people by expanding the operations of the Canada Pension Plan to offer options to the Canadian people of every variety of life insurance, which the public authority could do at a fraction of the cost of this horde of commission agents. I say, therefore, that I am not going to stop second reading of this bill, but I do want to point out the dangers of continuing along this path.


Mr. M. W. Martin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. First of all, I should like to give my endorsa-tion to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). I must frankly confess that I am not an expert in this field. There was a time some years ago when I had an opportunity of gaining a little more knowledge of this field, and I should like to relate that experience to underline the remarks made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. This experience goes back some years, in fact to a time before I had the privilege of entering this august chamber. At that time I was the president and chairman of the bargaining committee of the firefighters local. A pension plan had been shoved down the necks of the employees of our municipality by an insurance company along with the council of the day. We did not like it. We did not know too much about pension plans but the more we read about this plan the less we liked it. We proceeded, therefore, to get together to study it and various departments of the municipality raised certain objections. Finally we were treated to a display by the district troubleshooter of this insurance company. He gave us a real pep talk. However, we had delved deeply enough into the plan that we were not impressed and our questions got him into some pretty tough sledding.
The upshot was that he came around the next day to offer me a job with his insurance company. I was not too interested but I was curious. I asked him what they had in mind. He said that they would take me and train me for six months and while I was being trained they would pay me something like $100 a month more than I was receiving at that time as a firefighter, first class. At the end of six months the company would open a local office. They did not have a local office in my community. I would service the various pension plans they had, pick up any new ones I could and start selling life insurance. They said they would pay me a salary for
Private Bills
the first six months, plus commission. At the end of six months I would go on straight commission. I asked him what the commission was and he informed me the commission would be 90 per cent of the first year's premium, 15 per cent in the second year, then 5 per cent per year for five years and 2 per cent as long as the policy was in force. This seemed to me to be completely out of line. Perhaps I overestimated my ability, but I thought I had enough selling ability that if
1	had gone out and really "turned on the steam" for a few years I would be able to retire on my 2 per cent.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I discovered after searching further into the matter that this was not exactly the case. The company had another little scheme which prevented this state of affairs occurring. It seems that the company set a quota each year. The quota was the amount you sold the year before plus a certain percentage. For example, if a salesman sold $100,000 of insurance this year, next year his quota would be $150,000. When he reached $500,000 his next year's quota would go up to $600,000. If he really had ability and got his sales up to $1 million his quota would be raised again the following year. I also found, that the 2 per cent or 5 per cent or 15 per cent applied only as long as you met your quota. That possibly explains why there is such a tremendous turnover of salesmen in life insurance companies.
One matter referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, which I believe almost amounts to false pretences on the part of insurance companies in this country, involves the fact that when a policy is sold to a customer the 2 per cent is supposed to be the salesman's commission. But once a salesman ceases to work for the company the
2	per cent does not revert to the customer but goes into the coffers of the insurance company. I have seen cases time and time again of men who were top salesmen and had worked for years for a particular insurance company all of a sudden moving to another company and not obtaining any credit for previous sales.
What angers these salesmen is that the customer does not even get a rebate on his policy, and to me this amounts almost to false pretences. This is one of the causes of proliferation to which the hon. member referred. The more companies there are in the insurance field, the more 2 per cents will be taken from the customers, the people of

November 2, 1967
Private Bills
Canada, and piled up in the pockets of various companies.
In speaking to the bill, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) listed some reasons to account for the two year delay. I was looking through the transcript of the proceedings of the Senate standing committee on banking and commerce for Wednesday, June 28 last, No. 6, and I noticed that different reasons were listed. For example, as reported on page 24 the president of the Principal group, Mr. D. M. Connie, Q.C., said:
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I might just point out that the basis under which the original charter was granted has continued in force. I should like to run over the development of the group since the time of the granting of its original charter in 1965 for the life insurance company.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does that development relate to the delay in completing the organization of this company?


Mr.   Cormie@: Partially.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Well, to the extent that it does, it is relevant.


Mr.   Cormie@: Well, we found in 1965, shortly after this charter was granted, that it was desirable to have a little tighter and neater organizational pattern in the group, so it was decided to organize in the same pattern as the Investors Group in Winnipeg with primarily a holding company that was at the same time a principal management company-
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am a novice in the field but that is not the same reason.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information, would the hon. member look at the reasons given by the mover in the Senate, which preceded the testimony given by Mr. Cormie? The hon. members of the Senate banking committee had already been given the reasons by Senator Cameron. These are additional reasons. Mr. Cormie's reasons are not being discounted at all.


Murdo William Martin: I see. I also noted the reason given on the following page where Mr. Cormie is reported as follows:
We have just introduced an I.B.M. 360 system, and the programming on this for the life insurance company is estimated by our accounting department to take from six to eight months.
So the period will run into next year.
One point which does puzzle me is that, as reported on page 23, Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance, said:
Mr. Chairman and honourable senators, I have very little to say about this bill. Its purpose is to extend the life of a bill that was adopted by parliament two years ago to incorporate this company, and under the provisions of the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act, which is an

act of general application to insurance companies, it is provided that if a company is incorporated and does not become registered under the insurance act to transact business within two years, then its act expires. This company was incorporated in 1965, effective June 30, but the company was not able to get organized-
To my reckoning, Mr. Speaker, this bill is now null and void as of July 1 of this year. I do not know. Perhaps the introduction of the bill in the other place extended the life of the previous bill, but I should like to know what is the position. If the bill is dead, then why are we discussing it today?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of information, Mr. Speaker, may I tell the hon. member that the petition to extend this bill was dated December, 1966, and I believe was filed in February, 1967, with the full consent and agreement of the superintendent of insurance. As a matter of fact, the procedure that was adopted was the procedure suggested by the superintendent of insurance.


Murdo William Martin: Like my colleague from Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I have no intention of holding up the bill but I did want the few points I have raised to receive some attention.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I receive with gratification the applause of the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) and others at my recognition. I take it to mean that in anticipation of my remarks hon. members are endorsing them.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: I will not endorse them unless they make sense.


Frank Howard: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) pointed out that the purpose of this bill is simply to extend the deadline by which this company that is seeking to be incorporated can obtain its certificate, licence, or whatever the correct word is, from the Department of Insurance. It seeks to extend the life of the bill that was assented to on June 30, 1965, being chapter 21 of the statutes of that year, when the company was incorporated by parliament.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
It might be interesting to note that the classes of insurance which the company has permission to sell are life insurance, personal accident insurance and sickness insurance. I mention that because, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has said, the company is Canadian controlled. As I understand the Canadian and British Insurance
November 2, 1967

Companies Act, the company by law must remain under the control oi Canadians. Apart from looking at the investment policies of insurance companies we feel, as the Prime Minister has said, that it is desirable to bring insurance companies which are controlled in other countries under Canadian control, so far as their share ownership is concerned. That matter is not germane to this bill because this is a Canadian owned company and, from my knowledge of the law, it must remain under Canadian control.
It will be interesting to put on the record the ability of this company, or of the group of which it is a part, to increase its assets. Speaking on June 15, 1965, when he moved second reading of the bill which became the act to incorporate the company, the hon. member for Edmonton West said:
Let us look at some features of this group.
He was talking of the whole complex of companies which are involved in these arrangements:
First of all, what is the management team? This group, in operation for about 11 years, has shown itself to be quite a successful one. Its assets have increased more than 2,400 per cent since 1956 and in fact they amount to some $56 million according to its 1964 balance sheet. In eight years the number of holders of the group's investment contracts has risen from 4,700 to more than 63,000. The group has its own selling, administrative and investment divisions.
Then he makes other references to the company, saying that the administrative ability of those in the group is high with respect to the demands of the business world. He gave us some understanding of the investment policies which a group such as this follows. I believe the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) also spoke of this matter.
There is one difference between this company and other insurance companies. Shares of the company are not to be sold to the public. If the hon. member for Edmonton West made a contrary statement today in his remarks on second reading, they escaped me. I assume that what he said previously is still true. The public will not be invited to participate in any capitalization or shareholding with respect to Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada. The company, as I understand the matter, is to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the holding company which also has the words "principal holdings" or similar words in its name. This brings me to the matter of the intimate relationship which may exist between the two insurance companies which, I understand, 27053-241
Private Bills
are held by the same holding company. Indirectly, a trust company and a mutual fund management company, from my reading of the record with respect to the bill in the other place, indirectly are held by the same holding company.
This at once raises the question of so-called arm's length dealings between companies which are of the same family, or of the same ownership. This matter was raised before the standing committee on banking and commerce of the Senate, when this bill was being considered. There is extensive reference to it. It was initiated by a question of Senator Leonard, and answered by Mr. Cor-mie who is president of Principal Life Insurance Company of Canada, and by Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance. The remarks of Mr. Humphrys, a highly qualified and extremely knowledgeable public servant, as they relate to these so-called arms length dealings, are of interest. On page 26 of the minutes for Wednesday, June 18, 1967, Mr. Humphrys says:
I would say that the Investment contracts as such bear a contract under which the purchaser pays a series ot instalments over five, ten, fifteen or twenty years and the contract promises to return the purchaser the face amount at the end of the period. They are not the kind of investment instruments that will be used for investment of funds of a life insurance company, and I do not think that we could find anything in the life insurance act which would render them eligible. The mutual fund in so far as it isuses shares, and they can be regarded as common shares and have a dividend record, might be technically eligible under the provisions of the act; but as a matter of good practice the department-
And here is the declaration of public policy in this regard:
-very strongly discourages any life insurance company from investing its funds in a .circumstance that is not completely an arm's length one. We would be critical of a company that invested funds in the affairs of an associated or affiliated company.
Mr. Humphrys had made similar pronouncements on other occasions. After being asked whether something stronger than the disapproval by the superintendent of insurance might be brought to bear, he went on to say:
Mr. Chairman, to date we have felt that we have been able to avoid any serious problems in this area. I may say, however, that my own feeling is that one of the principal dangers that we now face in these growing financial groups in Canada is this question of investing in public funds, that is, money that has been borrowed in situations that are not arm's length, where people making investment decisions cannot be sure that they are

November 2, 1967
Private Bills
making the best decision for both companies concerned. That is a matter which should be recognized more specifically in the legislation dealing with companies of that kind than is now the case.
In other words Mr. Humphrys says that this is the principal danger. The danger is to the investing public, to those individuals who have a contract, whether with a life insurance investment or with respect to mutual funds, with any company that is part of a group or closely related complex of companies. Mr. Humphrys went on to say that he was making recommendations to the minister who had authority over the department for the introduction of law to deal with this matter.
I hope that such law will be introduced before this house soon, because the danger of which Mr. Humphrys speaks has not arisen during the last week or the last month. It has existed in this nation for many years and, were Mr. Humphrys' words not heeded, the result might be the collapse of any one of the intimately involved trust and insurance complexes that exist in this nation.
[DOT] (6.40 p.m.)
This may be one of the features involved in the collapse of such groups. I do not think we can simply trust to the hope of the department of insurance that its highly critical view of such arm's length dealings should be relied on in the future to carry the weight which Mr. Humphrys says it has done in the past. This is a very real danger.
When the bill was considered earlier there was an injection of politics into our discussion. I would only say in passing that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) also spoke on June 16, 1965, and since this is an Edmonton based company the hon. member for Medicine Hat pointed out that this was obviously the result of farsighted policies on the part of the government of Alberta, and that no company could possibly go broke under those conditions. I say this in passing. I do not see the hon. member for Medicine Hat here today and I doubt whether he would have the same remarks to make today, in any event.
I wish to follow up some of the remarks made by my hon. friend from Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) about the state of our economy and the effect upon it of the activities of groups such as the one whose affairs are before us now, carrying out a certain type of investment program, a type of program which my hon. friend has clearly stated to be injurious to Canada's interests. By this, I mean purchasing policies which result in an outflow of Canadian savings for

investment in other countries. This is one of the most important factors contributing to the difficulties we are experiencing in this country today. If the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) would only pay more attention to this aspect and less to slashing expenditures, raising taxes and introducing price and wage controls, we might be better off. Let me quote from the proceedings in the Senate committee in connection with investment outside Canada. Senator Isnor raised this matter, as reported on page 26:
Mr. Chairman, perhaps what I am going to say has no direct bearing on the bill itself, but I am wondering about the mutual funds statement. I notice there are $2 million in various securities- common stocks, and that of a total of $7 million, $5 million is invested in common stocks. Is this the usual percentage that you use?
To which Mr. Cormie replied:
Well, no; I would say this varies according to the recommendations of the investment advisers, the name of whom at present is Davis Palmer Company, New York, and this will vary according to the judgment of the investment advisers. There is a tendency to move more heavily into United States stocks.
So there is a group of investment advisers in New York upon whose judgment the investment policy depends. The report continues:
Senator Isnor: Yes, in stocks in a mutual fund.


Mr.   Cormie@: Yes.
Senator Isnor: In other words, you have 80 per cent investment in common stocks?


Mr.   Cormie@: Yes, that is correct.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mutual funds.


Frank Howard: Yes, indeed. That is why I quoted Senator Isnor's original question-because he talked about mutual funds and $5 million of the $7 million being in common stocks. The report goes on:
Senator Isnor: That struck me as very high.


Mr.   Cormie@: This will vary. It has moved up. I believe six months ago it was close to 62 per cent in common stocks. Now it has moved up recently to the time of this statement-
June 28, 1967.
-and you will notice in November a big change in the proportion in common stocks between November 1966 and February 1967, so that would indicate I believe what we are saying that the movement into common stocks has only occurred recently.
Then the committee goes on to discuss the percentage guide lines and so on. As we see, Mr. Cormie himself indicates that the company's investment advisers are a firm in New York and that there was a tendency recently to move more heavily into United States
November 2, 1967

stocks. We have been aware of this for some time. I would be reluctant to go too far in discussing the purposes of this particular company in the investment field. I have no objection to the formation of the company or to its operation. We have been trying to buttress the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and to help him in every way we can, because we know he is encountering difficulties in his cabinet with regard to some of these things.
This is a Canadian-owned company and since it is a life insurance company it is required by law to remain one. We take the position that this bill should proceed to the committee, but that these aspects of its investment policy to which I have called attention should be examined in a great deal more detail than has been the case up to now, with a view to ascertaining whether they could not have a damaging effect upon the economy.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, once again, I shall speak only three minutes.
I must say that the arguments of my colleagues of the New Democratic party have a considerable impact on me in the financial circumstances facing the country at this time.
I have had the opportunity of mentioning several times that the government should be inspired by certain suggestions provided by certain parties. I mean especially the third parties, because I have the impression that the two traditional parties are being guided in their legislation by the existing financial situation and do not seem inclined to get out of their environment or, to use a more up-to-date expression, to swing to the left.
I think this is a case where the government should definitely swing to the left and seriously consider whether it would not be of considerable benefit for the government in solving the difficult financial circumstances in which the Canadian people find themselves at this time, to require as a strict minimum all such companies to invest to a very high degree in the economy of the country.
I simply want to say that, on this point, I support unreservedly the remarks of my colleagues of the New Democratic party that there is a weakness here and that a review, a reorganization of the fiancial situation is necessary in that field, as in some others, precisely to relieve the fate of Canadian taxpayers and put a stop to the flow of our capital
27053-241i
Private Bills
into American investments simply because they are more profitable for the company.
Some consideration must also be given to the finances of the country which are at stake and which require those people to invest more in the country.
I emphasize this part of my remarks to say that I support them completely, even if I do not object in principle to the incorporation of this company. I suggest that the government should look closely into the remarks of members of the New Democratic party and keep them in mind when the basis of our whole financial system is revised. Furthermore, it is very urgent that the major companies such as these should sit around a table and consider our financial situation in the light of its social repercussions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.



BRITISH NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-
Grace) moved the second reading of Bill No. S-14, respecting British Northwestern Insurance Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Prior to 1964 there were four insurance companies belonging to the Eagle Star Insurance group operating in Canada. All these companies carried on a general insurance business. One of these companies was British Northwestern Insurance Company, which is being considered in this bill. The other three companies were Eagle Star Insurance Company, the Security National Insurance Company and British Crown Insurance Corporation Limited. Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited was an English company, and was the holding company for the other three companies. Since 1964 the Security National Insurance Company and British Crown Insurance Corporation Limited have transferred their business to the British Northwestern Insurance Company, and the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the British Northwestern Insurance Company to Eagle Star Insurance Company of Canada. Once that is done the holding company, which is called the Eagle Star Insurance Company Limited, will
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1967
Private Bills
also transfer its business to the company under consideration so that there will be only one company under the name of the Eagle Star Insurance Company of Canada.
The reason for keeping that name is because it is a well known name in the insurance business. It is a business that has been carried on under that name for years. The only other purpose of the bill is to increase the number of shares to allow the one company to carry on the business that was previously carried on by four.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, with all respect to the direct explanation given by the sponsor of the bill and the relative brevity of the proceedings before the Senate committee on banking and commerce on June 28, there are a couple of aspects of this bill that need a little more exploration. Because of the structure of the company, because of the fact that it falls within that class of companies which is foreign controlled, foreign owned-at least that is my understanding-and the fact that it is one that is exempted from the provisions of the public law relating to Canadian ownership, I think we should not be hasty in giving the bill passage and referral to a committee.
I was reading the proceedings before the banking and commerce committee of the Senate, held on June 28, with reference to this company, and quite frankly I am a bit confused. I think there is obviously a typographical error in the report of the proceedings. I think it is necessary to read a few statements from it in order to point out where the confusion arises.
As recorded at page 29 of the proceedings, Senator Leonard asked Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of insurance, the following question:
Mr. Humphrys, what happens to the British Eagle Star in Canada?


Mr.   Humphrys@: Its insurance will he either
allowed to run out and be re-written as it comes up for renewal, in this company, or there will be a portfolio transfer where this company will take over the policies which have been written by the Eagle Star.
Then comes this important question by Senator Leonard:
The Canadian people will not be offered an opportunity to insure in either a British company or a Canadian company by the name of Eagle Star?


Mr.   Humphrys@: No. My understanding is that the activities of this group in Canada will be channeled through this company alone.
I do not know whether Mr. Humphrys was saying no to the negative sense in which the
[Mr. Allmand.I
question was posed, in other words saying no to the proposition that the Canadian people will not be offered an opportunity to insure in either a British or Canadian company, or saying no and meaning that they cannot insure through a British company by the name of Eagle Star.
I say that because the bill seeks to change the name of British Northwestern Insurance Company simply to Eagle Star Insurance Company of Canada, and in the French version Eagle Star Compagnie d'Assurance du Canada. Either the Senate committee printed proceedings in this respect must contain a typographical error, or the question was posed in an incorrect way by Senator Leonard, because the reading of the proceedings would lead one to believe it is not possible to have any insurance through a British or Canadian company called Eagle Star once this bill receives passage.
The other aspect of the bill is the one I mentioned earlier, namely that it is not a Canadian company at the moment, and the public declarations of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Gordon), and others on the government side indicate that it is government policy to have companies achieve and maintain a Canadian identity. Because there is no procedure at the moment for this to happen with respect to this company, except the procedure followed in the precedent set by the Mercantile bank group, and another investment company bill which passed through the house this year, I do not think we should give second reading to this bill until some of these assurances can be provided.


Mr. Allmand:: For the information of the hon. member this company is a Canadian company, originally incorporated in Manitoba in 1906, and subsequently incorporated under chapter 70 of the statutes of 1910. The original company, Eagle Star, was a British company.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I think you should note what is being permitted here. It is difficult to have two hon. members proceed at the same time. If the hon. member wants to ask a question and incorporate this in his question I shall be very glad to allow him the opportunity, but it being seven o'clock I think it might be better to wait for another day.
November 2, 1967


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members business has expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The house again in committee of supply. It being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. [Translation]
Maurice Rinfret: Order. The house in committee of supply, estimates of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be to pay a well deserved tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) and it is always a dangerous business to do that in view of his great humility. I do not think it is too much to say that he is one of the most brilliant newcomers to government in recent months and we are proud to see him work in public life in such an effective and dynamic manner.
Here are the few questions I want to ask. First of all, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to what extent the federal government is willing, while respecting the jurisdictions concerned, to take the initiative or to suggest to the provinces to set up a compensation system on behalf of the individuals or families who have been the victims of criminals.
In recent years, several measures have been proposed to alleviate the lot of criminals, of prisoners. It is clear that science, like sociology, has made enough progress to indicate that certain steps in that direction are imperative.
Furthermore, or rather along the same lines, we should have generous thoughts for victims of criminals.
Often we see films and television programs showing the acts that weigh on the conscience of a convict shortly to be led to the scaffold. But never are we shown in such
Supply-Justice
films or programs the sorry fate of the families of policemen who died on the field of honour, in the accomplishment of their duty.
So I urge, with all possible energy, the government to take the necessary steps to have in Canada a system of compensation to help the victims of criminals or the families of those victims who died as a result of a crime being committed.
My second question to the minister is as follows: he is aware that the province of Quebec recently established a commission to inquire into the administraton of justice? Could he tell me to what extent the Department of Justice is co-operating with the commission recently appointed by the provincial government in this connection?
Thirdly, could he tell me whether in the master legislation he intends to bring before the house shortly, for the purpose of revising the Criminal Code, it is considered to abolish section 149 of the Criminal Code, thus following the example of the British parliament when it passed a legislation regarding homosexuality? And I can speak about it with complete objectivity since I can never lay myself open to malicious criticism.
Mr. Chairman, another quesion I should like to put to the minister deals with the constitutional problem. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development (Mr. Sauve) announced some time ago the intention of the federal government to show the greatest possible latitude during the forthcoming federal-provincial conference and to accept discussion on the widest possible subjects necessarily related to the constitutional problems. Proceedings will not be restrictive but rather made as general as posible.
I should like to know if since its new intention has been announced through the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development the federal government has received from the various provincial authorities recommendations or suggestions regarding the subjects to be discussed at the federal-provincial conference in January of next year.
This afternoon, I had the opportunity of asking the minister if the famous two-nation concept, which is the basic policy in constitutional matters, has become the major theory of the Conservative party. The member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) and the others supported the two-nations theory. I should like to know to what extent the provincial governments have indicated to the federal Minister of Justice their intenton of undertaking the study of that matter and the

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
eventual application of the two-nation concept.
For my part, Mr. Chairman, in reading from cover to cover the book written by the premier of Quebec, Mr. Daniel Johnson, I found some very interesting suggestions and a truly exhaustive definition of the two-nation concept. However, I would like to know to what extent the Progressive Conservative party endorses the views of Mr. Daniel Johnson, who maintains that federal-provincial conferences should be replaced by others where representativs of the French-Canadian nation would join representatives of the English-Canadian nation. This is a theory of the Conservative party, and I would like to know to what extent this problem will be considered at the next federal-provincial conference.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, with regard to capital punishment, the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) has informed the house of the gist of the bill he intended to introduce. Up to a point, if the bill of the Solicitor General is passed, this could bring back the death penalty, as it has now been abolished for all practical purposes.
We know the cabinet majority philosophy in that respect. The cabinet has shown its majority to be against maintaining the death penalty, and it would be against their principles not to proceed with the commutations we have seen since 1966, when the bill was introduced in the house, which decided in favour of maintaining the death penalty. But if the bill introduced by the Solicitor General is passed, it will mean that the death penalty will not be abolished, as it would be applied in the case of those who kill or murder a policeman.
I wonder if the minister is able to tell us, as this is a government measure, whether capital punishment will be reinstated or whether commutation practices will be systematically continued. Should the latter be the case, that is, if death sentences are to be automatically commuted, I fail to see any need for reintroducing in the house the motion of the Solicitor General. I would only suggest that provincial justice authorities be requested to exercise as they see fit this royal prerogative, instead of the governor in council. This decision would be left with the lieutenant governor in council; thus, we would be relieved of this constitutional burden. This would be quite logical, since, as I said earlier, the administration of justice is a provincial responsibility.
[Mr. Choquette.l
Now, I refer all those questions to the attention of the minister. In addition, I say that if the bill introduced by the Solicitor General is passed by the house and if the government really intends to enforce the legislation as drawn up, that is to impose the death penalty for the murder of a policeman, then I will be pleased to support the bill which the Solicitor General wishes to submit. Otherwise, I think it is useless to have the house waste its time and ask it to vote on a legislation which, for all practical purposes, will be inexistent.
[DOT] (8.10 p.m.)


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to follow the hon. member for Lot-biniere in speaking in this debate. A few moments ago I had the pleasure of meeting his brother, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that hon. gentleman to be a very agreeable sort of fellow. I am sure the whole committee will be very pleasantly surprised that not only is he an agreeable chap, he is also sensible.


Auguste Choquette: He is not a politician.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I hope I will have more pleasant surprises about that family. Perhaps if the hon. member for Lotbiniere took a few lessons from his brother we might hear a little less nonsense from him from time to time in this chamber.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not have to know the brothers of the hon. member to know that he is unpleasant and that his behaviour is disagreeable.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am always pleased to note that the hon. member maintains his usual standard of intelligence, so that we can always hope for improvement.
I only wish to intervene for a few moments this evening because I have been greatly disturbed in the house to hear what I consider an unwarranted attack on the system of justice in this country, and what I consider to be an irresponsible attitude not only on the part of many citizens in the country but certain members of parliament regarding the administration of justice. I am one of those who has always felt it to be the duty of members of this house to uphold the institutions of this country, the system of justice, and our duty to back to the hilt our
November 2. 1967

method of doing things until we find them in error, and then searching as assiduously as we can to correct those errors.
What has really disturbed me is the Trus-cott case, and I wonder whether members have really thought about the amount of damage that has been done to public confidence in the system of the administration of justice in this country. Being a courtroom lawyer I am familiar with the public's attitude toward the winners and losers of court cases, and I am quite familiar with the expressions of opinions about the presiding judge, the parties and the lawyers when they win or lose. I have been damned for losing a case when I thought I had carried out my duty to the best of my ability and have done a good job, and I have been praised to the skies for winning when I really thought I had not done very well but that the opposing counsel or the prosecutor had made a glaring error. Yet I was considered a great counsel because my client was acquitted. These are human and natural feelings.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Our system of justice is not faultless. In every case where the judge has to make up his mind on the balance of probabilities as to whether there is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there certainly is room for questioning his judgment and ability. But after it goes through the court of appeal of a province, and after it goes through the last court of appeal, which in this country is the Supreme Court of Canada, where it has had the attention of some of the most brilliant legal minds of the country, men who take their duties very seriously and who work very hard, surely those of us who have any respect for our system of justice have the very stern duty of trying to uphold their judgment. Of course, there is always room for reservation of opinion concerning their judgment; but surely anyone knows that the market gossip, the sort of story that is repeated from house to house, and the housewives' gossip, can only be an amplification or a minimizing of the true facts.
This is the sort of thing that can demoralize the people. This is the sort of thing that, taken out of its proper context and not handled with that reserve of judgment which members of parliament are supposed to have, can do untold harm to the system of justice in this country. I know for instance, as does any practising lawyer, about the common suspicion among ordinary people, who have little or no occasion to resort to law, that a
Supply-Justice
case was cooked because the defence counsel and the prosecutor were having lunch together, being such good friends. We insist on the adversary system in our courts. I know that when people are not familiar with the courts they find it very difficult to understand how two lawyers on opposing sides can go into court and wholeheartedly give of their best ability, experience, judgment and hard work for their respective clients. They find it difficult to understand how one counsel can fight very hard against a fellow counsel who in turn does his best for his client, even as we in the house who may be close friends outside the house can sometimes hit very hard at our friends, pulling no punches. We do this because it is our duty to do so. Some people can perhaps understand it better when it happens among politicians because we receive greater attention from the press than do the courts, and because this aspect of our lives is better known. The work of the courts is usually known to the public only for the spectacular, and the courts are talked about only by those who have a rankling sense of injustice.
I was therefore shocked and dismayed by the conduct of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the Truscott case. A book was written about the case by someone called LeBourdais. Anyone who read the book must have seen immediately with what inflamed passion it was written, and how unfair so many of her criticisms were. In fact many of her arguments were fallacious and one-sided. The hon. member then, on the basis of a five minute conversation with the accused, said: I will stake my seat on his innocence. He said this after the boy had been convicted by a jury of honest citizens doing their best to bring in an honest verdict. The verdict was upheld by the very competent court of appeal of Ontario, and then carefully reviewed by the Supreme Court of Canada. What sickens me even more is that after all this agitation, and because there is a fear that justice has not been done, the government made arrangements so that the Supreme Court of Canada could once again review the case. Arrangements were made to hear the added evidence which those on the side of the boy think should have swayed the jury so as to reach a different decision.
A very exhaustive hearing ensued, and after hearing the added evidence a judgment was delivered stating that the boy had a fair trial, that he was guilty and that in fact, except for the opinion of one dissenting judge, the added evidence only reinforced

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
and made stronger the case against him. To make doubly sure there was no miscarriage oi justice, even after all this took place representations were made and voices were heard suggesting that this was a terrible thing and that something should be done.
I am very disturbed when 1 see petitions being passed around asking that something be done for the boy. As you know, I am not inhuman. I am one of those who has always been opposed to capital punishment. I do not believe in revenge for the sake of revenge. I do not believe in being extra tough or harsh; but I have always said that we should not mollycoddle anyone who has done harm and that justice must be justice, although I think it should be tempered with mercy.
We have a basic system of justice in which all our citizens place their faith and confidence. As I said, it is not faultless. Anyone who has been to the courts knows that there are many small factors which may sway the mind of a judge or a jury; but this is part of our life. These are the considerations with which we have to live day by day. These are things which we must and will accept because we have not arrived at a finer system and we know no finer system. We as citizens of this country realize there might be a slight miscarriage of justice here or there, or a certain feeling that a decision should have gone the other way, that mistakes might be made, but at the same time we know it is the best system we can devise and each of us must put up with slight mistakes. Each of us must bear any slight miscarriage of justice that might occur, because we know that by and large we can arrive at no better and no fairer system. Surely this is the attitude of any citizen of this democracy who wants to see our way of life continued and improved.
How much stronger then is the duty of a member of parliament who, because I believe he must, represents the finest of citizens, to make sure that he carries out his duty and to be wary of taking cheap political advantage of a situation which may build up his name but will at the same time shake the confidence of the people of this country in the system of justice which we have tried to make as good as we can.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I am glad to see the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is sitting in his seat. The judge and jury as well as the court of appeal, all dedicated people who try to be fair, gave weeks and perhaps even months of

study to the facts of the case. I found it most repugnant, reprehensible and repulsive to hear this hon. member say, after five minutes conversation with that boy, "I will stake my seat on his innocence." It shows either such complete contempt for our system of justice that we cannot believe that a member of parliament is guilty of it, or such contempt for his position as a member of this house that we are surprised he is still sitting here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is he aware of the fact that I did not make the particular statement which he attributes to me; I think it was another member who said that, but I too believe Steven Truscott is innocent. I visited this young man not just for five minutes, but twice for an hour each time.
May I ask the hon. member also if it is not in keeping with our system of justice that a man is not guilty until he is proven guilty, and that when he has a jury trial the verdict must be unanimous? In view of the fact that one of the Supreme Court justices of this country felt this young man had not had a fair trial, does it not serve the interests of justice best to take the position that there is reasonable doubt and that this young man's case should be reconsidered?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I want to apologize to the hon. member for misrepresenting his case. In fact, I understand that perhaps it was the hon. member for Kootenay West who said he would stake his seat on the young man's innocence. I withdraw any suggestion the hon. member only had a five minute conversation. However, I do not believe two one hour conversations make that much difference. The essential point is that the hon. member is putting up two one hour conversations against the patient hearing of all the evidence by men and women of the jury, plus the judges on appeal, judges who certainly cannot be suspected of the political motives, the jumping on the band wagon for political achievement, that we may suspect in this case, not only of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre but of the hon. member for Kootenay West.


Mr. Byrne:: The hon. member for Kootenay West had no connection with this case so far as I know; it was the hon. member for Kootenay East.
November 2, 1967


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do not want to labour the point. I just thought it was worth while drawing to the attention of the members of this house certain facts, and asking them if we could not remember our responsibility to our system of justice, to judges and juries who try to do their job as best they can. Surely we must understand that whenever we have a winner and a loser we are going to have grumbling. We must live with this, and it is our job to make sure that since this system of justice is an integral part of the society in which we believe so much, we are wary of criticism.
I recall the Coffin case, for instance. There was an investigation in that case. It is very easy to arouse public opinion. I think perhaps it is a good thing that in our society public opinion can be aroused as it was in the Truscott case and the Coffin case, and that it is possible to have this sort of investigation. I have no quarrel with this. I think the Department of Justice did the right thing in trying to clear up these doubts. My only quarrel is with those who, even after the very careful investigation and after everything that was done to reassure us, still try to make our system of justice suspect.
They say, obviously it must be wrong. This can do nothing but harm to our country. I should like to go on to another subject for a few minutes. I come from the province of Alberta in which we have six man juries. This system was initiated at a time when the west was sparsely settled. It is true that even now we do not have a large population-only about a million and a quarter, I believe. However, it does seem archaic to me that the city of Edmonton, for instance, with a population of approximately 400,000, is still tied to the six man jury. The difference between a six man jury and a 12 man jury does not seem very much. Perhaps it only impresses counsel who has found one dissenter on a 12 man jury and who says that if he had had six they would have been unanimous whereas, having 12, there was a hung jury or a disagreement.
It is not strictly the defence lawyer who says: Give me another six men so that I have one more chance to get someone who disagrees. This statement comes from a defence lawyer who says that everything must be fair. I do not believe those who are charged with criminal offences in the province of Alberta should be treated any less reasonably or any differently from those in the province of Ontario who are charged with criminal offences. I do not believe that human nature
Supply-Justice
in Alberta is any different from human nature in Ontario. If it is necessary to have a 12 man jury in Ontario, then it is necessary to have a 12 man jury in Alberta. I simply suggest to you that today we have enough people in Alberta to enable us to go to the 12 man jury system. I simply suggest that we should now pretend that the west is inhabited, and ask whether it is not time that we were all treated equally in Canada.
You know, this question of jury trials is not too simple. There is a certain penalty attached to asking for a jury in criminal cases. I am not sure that I have any solution to this problem. I can recall the dean of our law school saying no lawyer who has a case should want to pick and choose between judges if he has confidence in his case and his client. This may be good theory, but it is lousy practice. If you ask for a jury trial when you could have had a trial by judge, and if your client is found guilty, then your client is going to get double the sentence because you have insulted the judge by asking for a jury trial. I am not saying this applies to all judges, but it certainly does to many. In fact I feel that the human element is so prevalent among our judges that perhaps we should take another close look at the Criminal Code and at the provision for election for trial by judge alone rather than by judge and jury. Perhaps the only time a man should be allowed trial by judge alone should be by the speedy trial method, so that there is no connotation of lack of faith in the judge. It would be just a matter of formality.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I do not know whether I am guilty of what I accuse the public of, namely not having enough faith in our system of justice, and perhaps in our judges. However, I have always felt duty bound to advise my client, in the event that he asked for a jury trial, that if he is found guilty the odds are that his sentence will be much higher than if he were tried by judge alone.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Yes.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Does he not think that by suggesting that judges would habitually double or increase sentences out of mere pique he is expressing a very great disrespect of the judiciary, much more so than the disrespect that he expressed when he castigated them earlier in his speech?
3820

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I thought I had expressed my own hesitation about this. I am not sure whether my revealing this practice does not make me guilty in a way. But I feel it my duty to apprise my client of the prospects for his future, rather than to achieve the cheap political gain of which I accused the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I think there is a difference there which should be apparent even to the hon. member for Greenwood.
Perhaps the hon. member for Greenwood finds that the judges who try his cases are all perfect. I do not think I suggested that the judges double the sentence every time; I simply said this was possible. I know that this factor I have mentioned works on the mind of a judge to such extent that I feel it necessary to warn my client that the sentence might be more severe if he asks for a jury trial. I will go so far as to say that I know of one judge in Alberta who told me-no one will get his name out of me-that if a client of mine was found guilty in a jury trial he would give him double because, as he put it, "we can't waste time with juries".
Judges are only human and this does happen infrequently. However, I did suggest to the Minister of Justice that having weighed these human elements and other factors which unfortunately do come into the situation, whether we like it or not it might be as well to have the option of a speedy trial by judge alone. If you want a speedy trial you ask to be tried by a judge alone; but certainly any case going to the supreme court should be tried by judge and jury. This procedure is not so expensive in Alberta where we use six man juries.
I do not pretend to have much experience of jury trials, Mr. Chairman. In fact I was on the first and only murder trial in the history of Canada that was tried by judge alone. I remember I found it rather amusing in our last debate on the subject of capital punishment in this house, being an exponent of the abolition of capital punishment, to realize that the vote on the matter was held on a Tuesday evening and that the man I had defended was due to be hanged on the Wednesday. So many of my friends accused me of fighting a little beyond the court of last resort, to which most lawyers usually go in order to save a life. But it did not matter, because this government commuted the sentence.
I should like to say something about that subject. I appeared on a television program

with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands-he will forgive me if I have mistaken him for somebody else-and we were asked about the commutation of sentences. The hon. member said: "Well, you know, if you break down the vote and see those who voted for abolition and those who voted against, you will find that those who voted for abolition represented the more populous constituencies and therefore represented the most people, and that really the popular vote was for abolition".
I remember that I rejected that out of hand. I think it is ridiculous for hon. members of this house to look behind the qualifications of any member of this house in the sense of how many people he represents. I remember that on that program I went so far as to say that when parliament has spoken with a majority voice, if we have responsible government-and there is much reason to doubt it these days-a government that believes in being responsible to the people, then the government must obey. On the last vote on this question parliament said "We want them to hang". But the government said "Parliament be hanged", and that is all.
I am an abolitionist but I would rather abolish this government. I think the welfare of this country necessitates the abolition of this government. I would not care if the house spoke against what I hold nearest and dearest to my heart. I would urge the government that they must obey parliament- and I have nothing but contempt for this government that, in turn, shows contempt for this house, which represents the voice of the people.
Hon. gentleman opposite say we are going to have a free vote on the next bill to come before us. Let me tell you what I think of that free vote, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you what I think of the honesty of the people over there who support such a dishonest government. How can you expect an honest vote?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will vote for abolition, but I am going to be ashamed to vote when I see the switch in voting that takes place over there. I am sure they are going to vote, not from the heart but for political considerations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
November 2, 1967

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Loiselle:: Fanaticism, fanaticism.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, we are studying the estimates of the Department of Justice, which department, in the mind of the people, is of prime importance. When looking at the total amount requested, namely $13,514,000, we note that, in terms of government expenditures, this is one of the less costly departments.
This, Mr. Chairman, is due to the fact, as mentioned a while ago by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), that the administration of justice falls more within the jurisdiction of the provinces than that of the federal government. We have a Department of Justice here for the whole of Canada, which leaves to the provinces the administration of justice within their jurisdiction and their boundaries, whether they are out east, out west, or in central Canada.
In fact, the Civil Code comes under the provincial government, whereas the Criminal Code comes under the federal government. I should like to point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) actions now being perpetrated in the province of Quebec which, to my mind, are absolutely of a criminal nature.
For instance, when driving around in the province of Quebec, we read on the viaducts we have to follow signs such as these: Vive le Quebec libre! Vive le R.I.N.! We even see them on private properties. I wonder then, whether there is any law whereby those organizations, those political parties could be forced to pay the damages caused by their members. It is not that I want to keep anyone from becoming a member of the R.I.N. if he so wishes. Not at all. That is not my goal.
If those who shout: Long live free Quebec, long live freedom, take the liberty of damaging the property of others, of committing vandalistic acts throughout the province, I really wonder what kind of freedom we would enjoy under the administration of R.I.N. supporters in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Boulanger:: It would no longer be freedom, but slavery.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, besides, I was myself the victim of such an act. During the night of October 12 to 13, after I stated that we were a single Canadian nation made up of various cultures and that both official languages should be recognized throughout the country, some members of the R.I.N. wrote
Supply-Justice
on the foundations of my Hull home in letters about a foot and a half high, the words: "Caouette, colonized, defector and traitor".
I stated that I held the members of R.I.N. responsible for this act of vandalism. The next day, in Le Droit, there was a reply to the effect that it was probably members of the R.I.N. but that they had no orders to act in this way even if they had reasons to do so. They had reasons to deface with paint not only private homes but overpasses, streets, roads, the great traffic highways in the province of Quebec paid for by the taxpayers. Then, they have motives.
Mr. Chairman, obviously all kinds of reasons can be put forward. But I feel that the government should pass legislation to force these people to pay for the damages. If they lack the courage and the guts to give their names, to sign their names or show their faces, at least let them respect other people's property in the country and in the province of Quebec.


Gérard Loiselle: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Imagine a province like ours being administered by such irresponsible hot-heads.


Prosper Boulanger: More than that, extremists.


David Réal Caouette: Yes. more than that, extremists and madmen. This goes a little beyond extremism, they are anarchists. There is no authority for these people. They want to rule, and they talk eloquently about freedom, while failing to recognize the freedom of others. If we do not happen to think like them, if we do not want to make a mess of our country, if we do not want Quebec outside of confederation, we are colonized turncoats, traitors to our nation.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of justice in Canada-and I say it here, in parliament-I do not think any French Canadian within the R.I.N. party could give me lessons in French-Canadian principles or patriotism, either in my province or in my country. However, one can be a French Canadian and patriotic without making virulent speeches, without trying to crush one's neighbours.
We have seen in Algeria experiences such as those the R.I.N. would like to put us through in Quebec. In fact, I met not so long ago a senior official from Algeria, where mutual hatred was spread, where they were at war for seven years and blood was running in the streets, to get independence. They got independence, but this official told me

November 2. 1967
Supply-Justice
this: We are worse off than before and 90 per cent of our economy is still under French control. That is the kind of independence they now have in Algeria, after a bloody seven-year war.
This is the kind of fight the R.I.N. would like to start in the province of Quebec and we refuse, in Canada, and specially in our province, to follow the example of Europe.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit me a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Does the hon. member, the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste include in his remarks the Ralliement National, or does he speak only of the R.I.N?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, if the Ralliement National has dispositions identical to those of the R.I.N., I put it exactly in the same group as the R.I.N.
Whether one is called the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) or any other name, it is not by shedding blood that we shall save Canada. That is not true. We shall save the country by good understanding, comprehension; not by understanding only in one corner of the country, but by understanding in every corner of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the English speaking members from the west or from the maritimes should try to understand our point of view, as we in the province of Quebec understand theirs, and we will then see that everything will be fine even in the York-Humber constituency.
Mr. Chairman, it is a point on which-


Mr. Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemonl):: The
hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) did not understand.


David Réal Caouette: I just said one thing. I said that when our English speaking members of parliament from the west, from central Canada and from the maritimes understand those of us from Quebec as we understand them, we shall have co-operation and understanding- even in the riding of York-Humber.


Mr. Cowan:: You have that co-operation and understanding in York-Humber now.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to some conditions prevailing in the
[Mr. Caouette.l
province of Quebec. No protection is granted to those who are molested or assaulted by those new modern savages: there seems to be a lack of interest in such behaviour. Public and private property is damaged but this is overlooked.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I think action should be taken. I do not, I repeat, wish to prevent anybody from joining the R.I.N. if he wants to do so-if someone wants to waste his time, let him join-but I do not think anyone should be allowed to tamper with the property of others. We do not want dictatorship, from the R.I.N. or from any other organization.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I wish to add that I agree with what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent), who spoke before me, said a while ago on the subject of capital punishment. The hon. member said that he himself was in favour of abolishing capital punishment but that a vote had been taken here in parliament, a free vote, and that the house had declared itself to be in favour of retaining capital punishment. It is a fact that the government did not care a rap about the vote taken in the House of Commons. So little store is set by the free vote that another has been announced in the house, to take place in a few weeks.
Are they now trying to prepare a free vote which would not actually be one? I, for one, am having in my riding a referendum on the matters of capital punishment and separatism, so as to know the opinion of my constituents.
As far as capital punishment is concerned, out of 856 answers received, 475 were in favour of maintaining capital punishment, 310 were for its abolition and 71 were undecided. That is the result to date. This means that opinions are rather equally divided; 475 against 381, the difference is less than 100 between those who are in favour of maintaining capital punishment and those who want its abolition. However, the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that when a vote is taken here in the House of Commons, a free vote, when parliament decides by a majority vote to maintain capital punishment, then the government should take this result into account. We are told that we will be called upon to consider an amendment providing that if a policeman or a prison guard is killed, then the murderer of that policeman or prison guard could be executed.
November 2, 1967

Mr. Chairman, I know that being a policeman or a prison guard is a dangerous, delicate and exacting job; I know that. However, my wife, my children, the hon. members' wives and children, any Canadian citizen is a human being just as much as a policeman or a prison guard. If we accept the principle of hanging the murderer of a policeman, I would like the murderer of my wife to hang also, because he would have killed a human being.
I feel that the principle is false even if we are told that for five years, we will try that method, we will not impose capital punishment on the murderers of ordinary citizens but we will execute the murderers of policemen or jailers. Let us be logical; why have one law for the rich and another for the poor? We are equal citizens, we are all Canadians, regardless of our situation. Now, if the population is for maintaining capital punishment, let us maintain it; if it is in favour of its abolishment, let us abolish it. But let us not overlook the wishes of our fellow citizens, of the electorate. And when parliament-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Would the hon. member allow me a question.


David Réal Caouette: Certainly.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, 1 presume the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste is talking about the maintenance of the death penalty for crimes proved beyond any doubt and not on circumstantial evidence.


David Réal Caouette: Quite so, Mr. Chairman. I say to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) that quite obviously in the past, there have been some terrible miscarriages of justice; innocent people have been hanged, it is true. But some evolution must take place necessarily.
Whether it is capital murder to the first degree, if there is no shadow of a doubt that we have the true murderer, I feel he should hang. We should maintain capital punishment for those people. But if a single doubt arises, if we have one single doubt, the least doubt in our mind, then no capital punishment but imprisonment, possibly life, 25 or 20 years, according to the doubt the jury may have. It seems to me that it would be the logical way to apply capital punishment in Canada, not only for one class of society, not only for a few civil servants, but for the whole of Canadian citizens.
Supply-Justice
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette) was saying a minute ago that to all practical purposes, capital punishment was already abolished. It is true. There have been horrible cases and not only in one province, in Quebec. What has happened in these typical cases is that the government has not acted upon the will of the House of Commons. This, it seems to me, is an insult by the government to parliament, not to take the vote of parliament into account.
Another question I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that of the rehabilitation of those who have been, let us say, for two years or five years in prison. You know that it is very difficult nowadays for a prisoner to get rehabilitated into society, because if he is a criminal, his record will accompany him for the remainder of his life.
We have at this time 18, 19 and 20-year old youths sentenced to five year or ten year terms. Once their sentence is served, they will leave the penitentiary dragging along their record until they breathe their last. Endless problems are encountered when trying to rehabilitate them. Who is going to trust a prisoner, a ex-convict? Who can expect him to become a good citizen after he has been in jail for two, five or ten years? There is a vicious circle here which prompts the ex-prisoner to commit other offences because nobody believes in him. We see that after six months or a year, the same man has reverted back to the same habits, because he was given no chance of rehabilitation.
I think that the Department of Justice or the government should set up a program to facilitate the rehabilitation of prisoners, of these people who have served a term, whether it be one, two, five or ten years, in a penitentiary or a prison. I think this would eliminate relapses into crime, the temptation or sometimes necessity for most former prison inmates to commit the same offences and continue to behave criminally, as happens today.
Mr. Chairman, parole also comes under the Department of Justice. I must confess to the hon. minister that all the discussions which I have had with the parole board have been very warm and the officials of the board are kind. They give good answers, their investigations to know whether so and so can benefit from a parole are cleverly carried out. I have but congratulations to offer to the department in that respect.

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice
The situation is examined; serious inquiries are made before anyone is paroled. This, I have found out. There have been mistakes. But anyone, just like us, can make mistakes. In fact, as long as we are human, we will see mistakes made and we will make some ourselves. Those who never make any are not here with us, but in another department in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, all this brings me to say to the Minister of Justice that his department is important, because when we speak of justice, in Canada or in a given province, justice in my view means the basis of a social structure that can stand up on its own, of a social structure that can gain in value, and that basis, which is equal justice for all, must be applied at all levels throughout this large country of ours.
Mr. Chairman, we shall certainly pass the estimates of the Department of Justice. However, I should like the minister to take into consideration the representations which I have just made with regard to our vandals in the province of Quebec, and also the rehabilitation especially of our young people or not so young who come out of prison or out of the penitentiary, not to mention the matter of capital punishment which must be voted on seriously, without partisan politics and in the best interest of the Canadian people who deserve all the protection we can give them, as their elected representatives, here in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I intend to direct my remarks through you, chiefly to the Minister of Justice, but before doing so I would like to make a brief reference to the contribution of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I am sorry he is not in the chamber at the moment but I have no doubt he will read what I have to say. The hon. member made an attack upon certain other hon. members in connection with the Truscott case. I do not propose to discuss that case, but I do want to suggest to the hon. member that respect for the courts of justice does not mean that one does not and cannot criticize in a respectful way the decisions of the courts, even of the very highest courts.
If a member has a profound conviction of the innocence of somebody, even though it may be that the courts have held him guilty, then it is the duty of that member to do all he can in the interests of justice to see that justice is done, even though this may involve

something that some people may regard as disrespect for the courts. I would remind the hon. member, as I think has already been done, that one of the eminent judges of the Supreme Court of Canada took a different view of the Truscott case. I would also remind the hon. member that it is not just a few freaks and strange people who are still concerned about the Truscott case. I would call his attention to an editorial in the Montreal Star of October 28, again appealing for another look at the Truscott case and for his early release on parole.
The Minister of Justice, Mr. Chairman, has many important responsibilities. I agree with the implications of the speeches by the hon. member for Bow River and the hon. member for Vancouver East when they indicated that in their view there was a great need for the fresh winds of reforming zeal to sweep through the Department of Justice, and a very great need for that reforming zeal to be translated into modern, up to date and enlightened legislation, particularly in the field of criminal law, and no doubt in other fields as well.
The minister, as has been said, is a young man. He is an able minister. He has the reputation, which no doubt is well earned, of being a liberal with a small "1", and the more of those there are on the treasury benches the better it will be. I would like to say we all wish him well, in his very important task as Minister of Justice. However, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss tonight what I think is the most important of all his duties. I refer to his responsibility as the principal constitutional adviser of the government. This is always important in a federal system, but it is absolutely crucial at the present time.
On September 28, speaking in a television interview, the Prime Minister said that the current national unity crisis is a threat to the survival of Canada, and he appealed to all political parties to follow the precedents set in wartime and to unite on basic objectives. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what we in this party would like to do, but it is quite useless to expect us to unite on these issues and then deny the house any reasonable opportunity to discuss them.
Make no mistake about it, the current crisis of national unity has constitutional implications. These cannot be ignored. They cannot be avoided, shoved under a rug, or dealt with in a piecemeal way. They must be faced and the one place to face them is right here in parliament. I am going to invite the
November 2. 1967

Minister of Justice, who has spoken to the Canadian Bar Association on these transcendent and important issues, to speak to the house on these constitutional issues. Let him speak here and tell us where he and his government stand on the constitutional issues of the day. I want to tell him that in the minds of many Canadians they think there is a vacuum at the centre.
Quebec, as we all know, is seething with demands for constitutional change and the rest of us have no right to say now, as we used to say, that we do not know what Quebec wants. Naturally there is a multiplicity of voices. In fact, Mr. Chairman, as I am speaking there is a multiplicity of voices in the chamber. However, I understand that the Quebec Liberal Federation has demanded a new constitution, with a special or particular status for Quebec. The premier of Quebec has made it clear that in his opinion the future of Canada depends on constitutional change. I notice that he has recently taken on a special adviser to the cabinet on constitutional issues, a very respected businessman, Marcel Faribeault, who, in collaboration with Mr. Fowler has written a book on the vital importance of a new constitution, and just the other day repeated that he would not back down from anything he had said in that book.
As some hon. members know, Le Devoir on June 30 issued a special anniversary issue containing 23 articles, all but two written by people in the province of Quebec, setting out in detail the changes which the authors think are desirable. As we all know, the premier of Ontario has called a conference to discuss the future of confederation. Everyone will be at it but the people who should be there, who should be the most important of all, the elected representatives in the government of Canada. This conference is something like playing Hamlet without the prince of Denmark. I think it is absurd to discuss the future of the constitution of the country without representatives of the government of Canada being present, not just as observers but as the elected representatives to participate in the discussion that takes place.
I say there is an ugent need for the formulation of a federal Canadian point of view. I am not saying that the points of View of the various provinces are not Canadian, but I am saying there is a need for the federal authority to express its point of view, and this point of view, I suggest, should be definite, and
Supply-J ustice
about certain essentials it should be absolutely firm, although, there is room for flexibility in some matters.
Again I say that this chamber is the place where we have the right to know where the government stands on these matters. Speaking to the Canadian Bar Association on September 4 the Minister of Justice said that the federal government declares it is ready to discuss any constitutional changes proposed. I suggest that that is not good enough. The federal government must itself put forward its own proposals. In my view the proposal to discuss a constitutional bill of rights is just not good enough.
As the minister probably knows, I am enthusiastic about the general proposal to incorporate a constitutional bill of rights into the written constitution of the country. But if it is put forward in isolation, if it is put forward as a first and only step, I suggest it will be shot down. I think it should be part of a package deal.
I expect that the minister has read the article by Professor Edward McWhinney of McGill University. I do not seem to have his article with me, but I will invite the minister to reread it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have read it but I do not think I would care to reread it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Further, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it is not good enough, as some ministers have been doing, to talk about educational and cultural rights alone. No doubt they are vastly important and I hope all English speaking Canadians, including the premier of British Columbia, will give a resounding yes to legitimate demands that the educational and cultural rights of French speaking Canadians be given precisely the same generous treatment in the provinces that are predominantly English speaking as the English speaking minority has enjoyed for some time in the province of Quebec.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I simply do not want to underestimate the importance of that, but I do suggest that this alone is not enough. In an admirable editorial in Le Devoir of September 26 Mr. Claude Ryan dealt with this matter. He said that two things were necessary. If the minister will forgive my poor pronunciation, I will read in French part of what Mr. Ryan said:

At the level of the whole federation, they want, within the fullest possible measure, to have the

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice
assurance that their language and cultural rights will be recognized and respected, that they will not be treated as second class citizens because they speak French.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Ryan goes on to point out that in addition to this it is necessary to deal with the problem of the constitutional position of Quebec within confederation. In this respect the contemptuous remarks by the minister in a press conference a few days later, or perhaps while he was still at the meeting of the Canadian Bar Association, directed to all those who saw a solution to some of these constitutional dilemmas in a particular status for Quebec, were not at all helpful. Once again I turn to an editorial of Mr. Claude Ryan on September 8 under the heading:

The deplorable attitude of Mr. Pierre-Elliott Trudeau.

I will read the last paragraph, although I am sure the minister has already read it and no doubt it has increased his humility to the proper extent, but I will read it again: [Translation]
Basically, we blame Mr. Trudeau because he sets himself up as an outside Judge, arrogant and unbending, when he should humbly, like everyone else, be seeking. What we deplore, in his case, is a hateful tendency to judge from on high and from afar, problems of which, if he were somewhat more humble, he might suspect that the understanding escapes him. Mr. Trudeau claims to serve the cause of Canadian unity by speaking as he does. We claim that he does a disservice by extreme language, to this cause which in our eyes remains worthy. He makes more difficult the task of those who seek, through actual moderation, effective solutions to very real problems which they have not invented but, which stem from history and life and are only aggravated by the blindness of some people whose first duty would be to realize it with seriousness and truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I commend those words to the minister. I hope he will forgive my pronunciation. It is not quite what it should be, but I hope it is improving.
I want now to say a word about this matter of particular status. Of course it is possible to give a definition of that so confined that it does not mean anything more than we have at the present time in the British North
[Mr. Brewin.J
America Act. It is perfectly possible, as some of the opponents of this idea have said, to give it such a broad and sweeping content that to talk of a federal system and to confer such a particular status on any one province would be absurd, and would destroy the whole federal system. Both these propositions are true. But I agree with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration when he said at the Montmorency conference in September- I do not agree with all he said; I simply agree with this-that the time had come for us to set aside slogans, to sit down and discuss concrete proposals. With that I entirely agree.
The device of a particular status is not regarded, by us at any rate, as a sort of concession made so as to please Quebec and denied to other provinces. It is merely a device whereby, if Quebec desires decentralization on certain matters that affect her language and culture, she may insist on that decentralization. But if the rest of Canada, the other nine provinces-and for very good reasons, I may say-want centralized administration of certain matters they, too, can insist on that without being held to the degree of decentralization that appears attractive to the province of Quebec. This is only a device; it is not a sacred formula or anything like that.
Our function is to discuss and work out what should be done. I say that the minister is doing a disservice-I am sure he does not mean it-when he waives a particular status aside and rules it out in a rather insulting way, as he did before. Perhaps he did not say what he was reported as having said; I do not know. I do not even understand the full significance of his words. They were translated from French. His words were translated as stupid but I understand that he used an even stronger adjective than that.
I want once again to appeal to the minister, and through him to the government, to bring these constitutional issues and the problems facing us to a committee of this parliament. I suggest that because I believe out of this parliament can be chosen, from all parties and all regions, a group of people who can sit down in good faith, intelligence and sense, consider some of these problems and perhaps arrive at the consensus which the Prime Minister said is so important to the unity of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes.
November 2, 1967


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid I may not have enough time to answer many of these questions but I should like to deal with this one. As I understood him, the hon. member for Greenwood quoted Mr. Claude Ryan, and I should like to know whether the special status which the hon. member described and which his party has asked this house to adopt is, in content, the one that Mr. Claude Ryan has spelled out at some length.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would not say it was exactly what I have read from Claude Ryan's article in the issue of Le Devoir from which I have quoted. We do not agree with all of it holus-bolus. On the other hand, I thought it stated a perfectly reasonable negotiating position which I would be glad to discuss with Mr. Ryan, the minister or any other Canadian.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is it the position of your party?


Francis Andrew Brewin: It is not the position of my party. Mr. Ryan speaks for himself. We make our own statements. There is much that Mr. Ryan said with which I would agree, and there are certainly some things he said with which I would not agree.


An hon. Member:: What about what Mr. Cliche said?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I certainly agree with Mr. Cliche. I have no trouble at all in agreeing with Mr. Cliche.


Mr.   Cole@Longueuil: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member aware that Mr. Cliche said that Mr. Levesque's thesis was defensible, and is the hon. member ready to defend it?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I dare say he said that. I think Mr. Levesque's thesis is worthy of discussion. It was discussed by the Quebec Liberal Association. They did not agree with it. We have the right to agree or disagree with Mr. Levesque, who is a very able Canadian, and 1 have no doubt that Mr. Levesque can defend his thesis perfectly acceptably. I do not happen to agree with him. But I agree with Mr. Cliche that Mr. Levesque's thesis is certainly defensible and very well put, although I have to disagree with him.


Auguste Choquette: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)

He has said that we should make Quebec independent as soon as possible.
Supply-Justice


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I shall try to conclude my remarks, I hope without further interruptions.


Auguste Choquette: Those who support the N.D.P. are almost separatists, and that is something this house should know. Those who support that party in the province of Quebec are, I repeat, almost separatists.
The Assislanl Deputy Chairman: Order, please. There has been no question of privilege raised by the hon. member.


Francis Andrew Brewin: There has been no question of privilege and I should like to assure the hon. member that we will soon have some members in this party from the province of Quebec to explain their point of view here in this house. I am sorry they are not here at this time to do so.


Auguste Choquette: There are many republicans in Quebec who are not separatists.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, again I am going to try to make the rest of my speech, if possible, without further interruptions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Andy, you have irritated them tonight.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have said a few things that have disturbed hon. members opposite and I am delighted to have done so, but let me now get back to the plea I was making. This parliament should have a chance through committee procedure to make a thorough examination of these constitutional issues.
What have we heard so far? We have heard the Prime Minister inviting the premiers of the provinces to come to a conference to be held in January or February to discuss a constitutional bill of rights. We in this house are not told what this bill of rights is to be, or what it might contain. We do not know what the discussions are going to be about. I suggest that with the crisis facing this country and with the Prime Minister calling on all of us to get together as in time of war, the time has come to use the procedures of this parliament to invoke a serious discussion and dialogue in respect of these constitutional issues.
At this point I should like to read into the record a letter I wrote to the Prime Minister on this subject. This was a public letter and I am sure he would not object to my reading it

November 2, 1967
Supply-J ustice
at this point because it expresses precisely what I think is important.
Dear Mr. Pearson,
You will recall that over the course of the last two or three years I have written to you personally about the urgent need for a special all-party parliamentary committee to review the constitutional issues facing Canada in the light of the threat to Canadian unity.
The tenor of your replies has been an approval of the proposal, linked with an expression of opinion that the time had not yet arrived to set up such a committee. Questions in the house put by myself and others have elicited a similar response from you.
I am encouraged by your words on the TV program "Twenty Million Questions" on September 27th, to raise the matter once again and to urge you that it is now both timely and imperative to appoint such a committee. The time has come to take the initial steps towards seeking a concensus from the elected representatives from all parties and regions on the main lines of an adequate federal response to the insistent demand for constitutional change.
In the interview you said that the current national unity crisis is a threat to the survival of Canada and you urged political parties to unite on basic objectives to meet the crisis and to form a common political front on national unity.
This is a laudable, indeed a highly important objective, but how can it be achieved unless the real problems that are involved are carefully looked at together by the representatives of the different parties? An all-party parliamentary committee would be the means whereby the basic issues could be clarified, and perhaps a concensus arrived at as to the changes necessary to meet the aspirations of French-speaking Canada without undermining the essentials of functioning federal systems.
I am certain you could count on such a committee to adopt a non-partisan approach on a matter so vital to Canada's future existence.
I know that you have said that it is necessary for your government first to formulate its own approach, and for that purpose to await the recommendations of special advisers appointed to the Department of Justice.
But I suggest there is no time to lose. Mr. Claude Ryan, in an admirable editorial in he Devoir of the 26th of September, entitled "Les conditions d'une solution federale acceptable et durable", adopting the English expression, "Time is of the esence," has said that there is scarcely a moment to lose.
He adds "It is not excessive to affirm that there remains no more than a few years-two, three, or four at the most-to find the essential elements of a moderate solution to the "Canadian Problem".
Mr. Chairman, I believe that this parliament and the members of all parties have a part to play in finding these essential elements of a moderate solution which requires to be found, by Mr. Ryan's estimate, within two, three, or four years at the most.
[Mr. Brewin.l
I went on in my letter to the Prime Minister to say:
You have recently announced a proposal to discuss a constitutional bill of rights with the provincial premiers in November. May I urge that this proposal should be discussed with the House of Commons first, if you are truly serious about a non-partisan approach at the federal level to constitutional problems.
I urged that this proposal should be discussed in the House of Commons first, if the Prime Minister was serious about a non-partisan approach at the federal level in respect of constitutional problems. I will not read the rest of the letter but hon. members will see that it expresses what I am trying to say in the house to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of Justice and to his colleagues, that surely the time has come for the elected representatives of all regions of Canada to be given an opportunity to wrestle with these problems and to evolve if possible, and I believe it is, a concensus as to the federal point of view. It seems absolutely ridiculous that we have conferences called by provincial premiers and demands made by provinces, political parties and a key province in Canada, while at the same time we have no means in this parliament to dig into this problem in an attempt to deal with it.
In closing my remarks, I suggest to the Minister of Justice, that notwithstanding his other responsibilities of importance, such as the whole administration of justice, it is absolutely vital to the future of Canada that the elected representatives have a chance to look at this problem. I am sure they will do so in a non-partisan way so that we may contribute, not as a party or a group of parties, to the solution of the problems which the Prime Minister has said threaten the very existence of Canada. I ask the minister to state what is his position. I hope he agrees with the Prime Minister that even though the time is not exactly ripe, and perhaps we should wait until after the Ontario conference, the time is coming soon when the matter must and indeed should be dealt with by parliament. Anything less I suggest would create the danger of wrecking confederation, with the electing representatives having no chance to contribute their share to the solution of these grave problems.


Mr. Macquarrie:: Mr. Chairman, for a good many years I have sat through the estimates of the Department of Justice without making any comment. Tonight my time is limited, my interest is great and my anxiety broad. I should like to begin by doing something I did
November 2, 1967

not think I would be doing for a few years under any circumstances, and that is commending the hon. member for Villeneuve. He hit several nails firmly on the head tonight and I congratulate him. He is becoming a very perceptive spokesman for his part of the country, and a very perceptive person in reference to the whole of the country. He is quite right in suggesting you do not have to be a regional barrel thumper to be a good representative of any particular region.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I share too with the hon. member a feeling of unhappiness, or worse, about the question of capital punishment. I am not one of those so dedicated as being incapable of changing his mind on a question so important and so difficult of solution, while so far removed from certitude as this question. But I do resent very much any device by which members of parliament, no election having intervened, can be presented a second time with a similar question, the implication being that since a government measure is concerned, our disposition with regard to the subject might somehow be altered. I take this as a reflection upon our integrity. Indeed, to suggest that we are free agents when we vote, that we are simply seeking the best solution to the question before us, is not greatly conducive to the acceptance of the idea. All this disturbs me, and I quite agree with the hon. member for Villeneuve. I should have thought that in these critical and crucial times a better way might have been found when dealing with this very important question.
I wish there was an opportunity to discuss many other matters. Some of them have been touched upon by the hon. member for Greenwood who, I notice, is becoming quite a linguist. Some have been discussed by my hon. friend from Edmonton-Strathcona. The whole question of the laws in our society, and the judiciary as an institution, is one to which we should apply ourselves. The judicial institution in our free society is one of the great forces working for stability, and indeed, as a God-fearing Presbyterian, I might say, for enforced righteousness. But perhaps at times stability may seem to the body politic to be excessive conservatism with a small "c", and perhaps in a society, which is seemingly a very permissive one but also a restless and troubled one, the role of the judiciary and the courts is one upon which we should direct a little more thought.
As a layman in the field of law I am sometimes concerned about the variety of
Supply-J ustice
sentencing. I am speaking here in an academic and abstract sense, but when I see a bright young man who stole a boat being sentenced to four years in penitentiary, and another man, bright or otherwise, who ended the life of a couple of his fellow citizens, getting three years, I wonder. Sometimes I feel that there is often too great a regard for property and that the offence against property seems to be more heinous than the offence against life. Sometimes I wonder if in our present society we are concerned, as we certainly should be, about the life, the future and the prospects of rehabilitation for the offender and for the person who takes the life of his fellow man, but may be a little less than sensitive about his victims. In this field the hon. member for York-Humber, with whom I disagree on several things I may say, has shown some initiative and some sensitivity.
I wonder also if we are not at the stage where we should be giving some careful thought to and preparation in the whole realm of labour relations. I know that the history of labour courts in many parts of the world has been uncertain. There have been some great successes and some failures. But, as I have looked over the activities, the episodes, the incidents and the anxieties in the labour sector of society, I wonder if we should not be giving more thought to the judicial and institutional aspects in dealing with this important problem.
There are other fields which cause me great concern. As one who used to be involved in the field of sociology I am appaled at the great need for more adequately trained personnel in our corrective institutions. I often wonder about those who believe that the worst punishment that should be inflicted on anyone is life imprisonment, and are so disinterested in the establishment of adequate facilities in which to maintain these erring citizens. It is a long time since we looked in depth into our corrective institutions. We have passed the age of merely making a punishment fit the crime.
We have passed the retributive stage. But as I look at our institutions and as I hear stories of what happens in some of them, I wonder if in fact our preachments are not far beyong our practices. In this age, when we are looking again at our constitution, we should be looking at our role in the international scene and perhaps we should be doing some fundamental thinking in some of these areas.

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
At one time I had great expectations tor prospects in this field under the minister who, I had thought, was a man of great spark, great ability and great intellectual capacity. I hope that he still has all of these qualities and I hope he will emerge as a progressive, aggressive and reforming Minister of Justice. I have not yet seen evidence of that, but I am not yet prepared to say he is not capable of producing some signs of this. I hope we will soon see evidence of it.
I will not deal with the subject mentioned by the hon. member for Greenwood, except to say that had the great province of Ontario in these difficult years been headed by a man such as Mowat or Hepburn, the frail fabric of confederation would have been tattered indeed, and Premier Robarts is to be commended. I hope we can move forward in this direction after the important conference which he has called.
The clock directs me to leave my remarks in the preliminary stage, and I hope my electors will leave me here long enough to go in greater depth into some of these matters which I think are of great importance.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


Mr. Forest:: Mr. Chairman, so as not to delay the comments of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau), I shall resume my seat and put off my questions to another time.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to take only a few minutes on the occasion of the consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Trudeau) to discuss a matter that is surely of local interest. Since the minister has come here after 1965, in order to help him understand the situation. I should like to say a few words on the history of the matter I wish to deal with.
I would like for a few minutes, Mr. Chairman, to entertain the house and the minister, especially, about the proposed building of a penitentiary in St. Pie de Bagot.
When the minister arrived here, this project had been cancelled and, for his information, I would like to tell him that, because of a lack of space in penitentiaries, it had been decided to build one in St. Pie de Bagot. In fact, four farms where this minimum security penitentiary was to be built, had been purchased at a total cost of $85,000.
A survey had also been carried out on the site to ensure that the soil was appropriate for the proposed construction and that there was an adequate supply of water. Finally, all
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
arrangements had been taken. Enough water had been found on the site itself for the needs of the institution. As far as the remainder of the water needed is concerned, an understanding had been reached with the local municipal authorities which had agreed to supply it under conditions then acceptable to the department.
The plans and specifications were prepared and everything was ready to get under way. Then came the 1963 elections when we were defeated and a Liberal government took over here on parliament hill.
Hon. Lionel Chevrier was then appointed minister of justice and the first thing he deemed necessary was to reverse the previous decision and cancel the building of the said penitentiary.
That decision was surely unjustifiable, since the officials and the administrators of the Departments of Public Works and Justice had reached an agreement on the desirability of the project. That decision taken by the former minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, represents in fact an injustice toward the people of the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, and particularly of the municipality of Saint-Pie.
With that institution hundreds of workers would have had a job. Besides, goods would have been bought in the area and services would also have been used, which would have been in the interest of the people concerned. Because of the partisan decision-I say this without fear-of the former minister of justice, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, the people of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot have been seriously discriminated against.
I strongly appeal to the minister who has all the necessary qualifications to properly assume his responsibility. I know that he wishes to act fairly and that he wants to be considered as a fair man. He has a wonderful opportunity to correct a very serious and gross injustice that the people of my riding have asked me to bring to his attention.
I know the disposition of the minister and I am sure that, when he has the opportunity to consider all the aspects of this matter, he will want, as soon as possible, to correct that injustice for which his predecessor, Hon. Lionel Chevrier is fully responsible.
[English\


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I would be glad to yield if the minister wants to reply.
November 2, 1967


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I thank the hon. member for his courtesy, but I can hardly reply in three minutes.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I ask him one question, then? He and I have been carrying on an exchange about an individual by the name of Edward Somers. I know the matter has received a great deal of attention. I know the minister's great interest in civil rights. I know that Mr. Somers has made some sort of complaint to the Governor General of Canada, the Prime Minister of Canada, the commission for the administration of justice in Quebec, to the minister and others. I consider myself in distinguished company. Can the minister assure me that the files in this case, which involve a bankruptcy some years ago, will receive very careful consideration by the minister or departmental officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is hardly fair, Mr. Chairman, to try to deal with all these questions and complaints in the time left. With regard to the last one, I can only say extremely briefly that these files have received that attention. Basically, the question boils down to where the administration of justice lies and where the redress can be obtained, at the federal level or at the provincial level. I would welcome a chance to discuss this at greater length at some other time.
For the time being, I can only try to touch on the very broad subjects that have been broached tonight. I want to thank hon. members for the level at which they have placed this debate. We have gone all the way from the philosophy of law and the sociology of law to concrete proposals for law reform. I must congratulate hon. members for their very constructive proposals. With regard to a great number of them, I should say they will find we have anticipated their desires. They will find that in the omnibus Criminal Code bill, which runs some 50 printed pages in length and which I understand will be brought before the house very soon, many of the points which they have raised have been settled. I would only add that we are, in the Department of Justice, insisting very strongly on the function of law reform which is one of the fundamental tasks of the Department of Justice. This subject of law reform will be applied not only to the criminal law but to many other areas.
A lot of the complaints which were made in the house tonight, as hon. members recognize, had to do with the administration of justice and cannot be solved by action at the federal level alone. Many of the complaints
Supp ly-J ustice
centred around unequal justice to the rich and the poor, and in this respect not only is there a problem of provincial jurisdiction, but I should add that under the type of constitutional bill of rights which we intend to discuss with the provinces, the question of access to counsel is one with which we hope to deal.
I see the clock is moving fast, and this brings me to the whole constitutional question. I am sorry that at this time I will not be able to reply to the remarks made. I must point out to members that I spoke at some length on the constitution before the standing committee in the month of June. The answers to many of the questions asked by the hon. member for Greenwood will be found there. Let me just say that he, and many other people inside and outside of this house, are labouring under a very grave misconception. Perhaps the fault is mine for not having explained frequently enough what we intend by this bill of rights.


Richard Albert Bell: Ten o'clock.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the rule of the game, I suppose.


An hon. Member:: You made the rules.


Herman Maxwell Batten: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of special orders adopted April 26 and June 26, to forthwith put every question, without amendment or debate, necessary to dispose of the main and supplementary estimates now before the committee of supply. Accordingly, the Chair proposes to continue with the department now being considered and proceed in alphabetical order through those departments remaining.


Richard Albert Bell: May I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, it is ten o'clock and the rules do not provide for the continuance of this house after ten o'clock? I am submitting to you that the provisions of standing order 6 are mandatory that the house shall rise at ten o'clock. There are no exceptions made in relation to it by any special order and without a special order, the house cannot continue to sit. The special order of April 26, in paragraph 5(c) simply gives the number of days which may be allocated to the business of supply during the session. It does not, in any sense at all, abrogate the order dealing with the hour of adjournment.
This becomes quite clear, sir, when you consider the special order of June 26. This special order of June 26, which has no

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
application tonight, I submit with great respect, should not have been referred to and has no relevancy to our position as it now stands. The order of June 26 was designed to meet precisely the type of situation with which we are confronted. It provided:
That on Thursday, July 6, 1967, at 9.30 o'clock p.m., the proceedings of the house or the committee of supply or ways and means, as the case may be, shall be interrupted, and every question shall successively be put forthwith that may be necessary to dispose of the estimates of ten departments and any resolution or bill based thereon, and also such resolutions and bills as are necessary to provide for a fourth month interim supply;-
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
That paragraph was inserted into the special order of June 26, with great respect, Mr. Chairman, just because of a recognition of the total weakness of the order of April 26, 1967. The order of April 26 makes no provision whatever for the putting of the various items successively, as did that special order.
I venture to suggest to you that there is no provision whereby this house may extend its sittings beyond the time which is set forth so clearly under standing order 6, which provides that the house will rise at ten o'clock. It is ten o'clock, sir. The government has got itself into this box by its attempt to impose this type of guillotine on the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Richard Albert Bell: The government has put itself in this situation. I submit that it is now ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: Are we to submit to the arrogance of this government?


An hon. Member:: It is the new look.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: It is the old gang spoiling the new look.


Richard Albert Bell: When the Postmaster General has finished with his snide remarks I will continue, Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. The hon. member for Carleton has the floor.


Richard Albert Bell: I am putting to you clearly and directly, sir, that there is no special order that permits the house to sit beyond ten o'clock. There has to be such a special order. The Minister of National Health and Welfare well recognized that on June 26 and that a special order was so adopted then. Without such a special order we cannot sit beyond ten o'clock tonight.

I quite agree, sir that consideration of the estimates is now ended. We have had every hour that we can have on the estimates. However, under standing order 6 (5) (b) this house has no further authority to continue its sitting.


Michael Starr: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: -speaking on the point of order may I say I am sure the hon. member for Carleton will have recognized that the Chair did in fact interrupt the proceedings at exactly ten o'clock and called the vote for that purpose.


An hon. Member:: One minute after ten.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One minute, 30 seconds, that is not important.


Michael Starr: It is not important to one who can move from Social Credit to the Liberal ranks.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are dozens of precedents in this house showing that the vote has been called, and during the proceedings with respect to that vote the clock has gone past ten o'clock. Something like that happened a few days ago and no objection was raised to completing the vote being discussed while the clock went past ten o'clock. That is precisely the situation we face tonight. The vote was called. There are precedents in our history to show that votes, once they are discussed, are not necessarily interrupted at ten o'clock.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Unless there are further comments on the point of order may I read to the committee standing order 6(5) (b):
When a sitting is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order, or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended and that sitting shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion to adjourn moved by a minister of the crown.
May I also refer hon. members to Votes and, Proceedings of June 24, paragraph 4 which, referring to paragraph 3 of the recommendations of the special committee on procedure adopted on June 26, says:
-the operation of paragraph (3) of this order shall not in any way preclude the adoption of all items in the committee of supply and the enactment of supply bills based thereon within the thirty-day period prescribed therefor in sub-paragraph 5 (c) of the resolution adopted April 26, 1967;
November 2, 1967

There was a further amendment changing that 30 day period to a 38 day period. I am advised by the officials at the table that the 38 days had expired.


Michael Starr: No, thirty days only.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I should have said 30 days had expired. In carrying out the standing orders, therefore, with which the house has provided the Chairman, it is my duty now to proceed with the estimates that remain for all departments.


Thomas Miller Bell: With the greatest of respect, would Your honour be good enough to indicate where there is an order that business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded. Respectfully I suggest there is no such order of the house. There is the order that 38 days shall be allocated to consideration to the business of supply. There is nothing else. Because of this weakness the Minister of National Health and Welfare-and he knows this very well-included paragraph (6) in the order of June 26. Without that, he knew that it would be impossible to carry the estimates as was done.
With respect, sir, I suggest that you owe it to the committee to set forth where there is an order of this house that conforms to the clear provisions of section 6(5)(b). I shall repeat part of that:
When a sitting is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order, or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded-
We must find somewhere in a standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded. That provision exists in no standing or special order of this house.


Mr. MacEachen:: The Chairman ruled on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Carleton. I suggest that the committee should accept the ruling which is before us on two special orders of the house. The ruling is supported by the earlier paragraph which the Chairman read.
I wish to say that the house order specified that the vote would be taken at 9.30. That time was chosen so that all business of the house would be concluded at ten o'clock of that evening. That was not done, to avoid the pitfall that the hon. gentleman mentioned.
Supply-Justice


Mr. Churchill:: It was not concluded until 10.19.


Richard Albert Bell: Where is the standing or special order which permits us to carry on?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps I could refer hon. members to page 49 of our standing orders where it is stated, on the right hand side, that standing orders 56 and 57 are subject in the second session of the 27th Parliament to recommendations Nos. 5 and 7 of the second report of the special committee on procedure of the house adopted on April 26, 1967, as follows:
That the house adopt the following resolution with respect to supply procedure:
That for the duration of the second session of the 27th Parliament standing orders 56 and 57 shall be provisionally amended and interpreted in the light of the following procedures which shall govern the business of supply-
Then follows an enumeration of the various items recommended by the committee on procedure and adopted by the house on April 26.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? Have 38 days been given by this house to the business of supply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I rise on a point of order, or to speak to the point of order. A ruling has been made by the Chair, and the hon. member who has just resumed his seat knows it is quite improper to ask questions of the Chair. We have had a ruling.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Well, if a ruling has been made, what is the hon. gentleman doing now? Is he raising a second point of order on a point of order?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What I am doing is to suggest to members of the committee that the ruling of the Chair be accepted and that this improper procedure be not continued.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the minister of health and welfare can stand up and lecture the house on accepting the ruling of the Chair, I can get up and suggest that the ruling of the Chair be not accepted. If this type of debate is permitted I must be allowed the same privilege as has been accorded to the minister of health and welfare.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I am advised by the
officials at the table that we have already had 30 days of supply. We have had six days of supply motions and there are two days

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
remaining for another special purpose, making a total of 38 days referred to in our standing orders.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect for you, and the sincere affection I have for you personally, I must appeal the ruling and ask that you call Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker resumed the chair, and the Chairman of the committee made the following report:
Mr. Speaker, in committee of supply the Chairman interrupted proceedings and stated that in accordance with the provisions of special orders made April 26 and June 26 last, he intended to proceed to put forthwith the question on all votes now before the committee of supply.
Whereupon, the hon. member for Carleton raised a point of order to the effect that no provision could be found in any standing order which would permit the committee of supply to continue sitting beyond ten o'clock p.m. The Chairman ruled that in his opinion the authority to sit beyond ten o'clock p.m. and to proceed with the business of supply was to be found in the provisional amendment to standing order 56 and under the terms of standing order 6(5)(b).
Thereupon, the hon. member for Carleton appealed the Chairman's decision to Mr. Speaker.


Richard Albert Bell: The point has been stated with clarity and brevity and I appreciate the manner in which it has been presented to Your Honour. I shall endeavour to present my point of view with equal clarity and brevity because I believe an issue of very considerable significance related to responsible parliamentary government is at stake. My position, sir, is that the rules governing the adjournment of the house are mandatory and absolute. They are to be found in standing order 6. May I read subsection 4 of that standing order:
Subject to the exceptions stated in section (5) of this order, at 10 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays

I do not need to point out that this is Thursday.
-and at six o'clock p.m. on Wednesdays and Fridays, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the house, without question put, until the next sitting day.
The exception is in section 5 of the standing order. Section 5(a) reads:
When, pursuant to standing order 39A, a motion to adjourn is deemed to have been proposed at ten o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, the house shall not be adjourned until the said motion is deemed to have been adopted.
I venture to suggest that section is irrelevant for our particular purpose, but subsection (b) is relevant, and especially so.
When a sitting is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order-
[The Chairman.]
I venture to suggest section 6 is not relevant.
or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended-
It is the adjournment proceedings that are to be suspended.
-and that sitting shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion to adjourn moved by a minister of the crown.
What we must find in this issue is whether there is any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded. Now, where is that? So far as I can see, the only place that it could possibly be would be in the special order of the house adopted April 26, 1967, which appears in our text of the standing orders opposite standing order 56. I go immediately to subsection 5(c), which reads:
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)
Subject to the conditions specified below there shall be an over-all limitation of thirty eight days allotted to the business of supply during the session. For the purposes of this order the business of supply shall consist of supply motions; main estimates, interim supply with the exceptions noted below; supplementary and additional estimates with the exception noted below; and supply bills based on the foregoing.
I do not think any of the exceptions noted here are relevant at all to the argument that is before the chair at this time.
I venture to submit to Your Honour that in no way does that standing order provide that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded. It simply specifies a certain number of days. Clearly the number of days have elapsed, the house has reached ten o'clock, and that is it. My colleague from Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) points out to me that 38 days have not elapsed, that in fact 36 days have elapsed; but I think that matter is probably governed by a special order of the house and I make no particular point of that.
However, Mr. Speaker, I do make a point of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen), in attempting to meet exactly the point that has been raised, on June 26 prepared a motion which was adopted by the house. Subsection 5 of that motion reads:
That on Thursday, July 6, 1967, at 9.30 o'clock p.m., the proceedings of the house or the committee of supply or ways and means, as the case may be, shall be interrupted, and every question shall
November 2, 1967

successively be put forthwith that may be necessary to dispose of the estimates of ten departments and any resolution or bill based thereon, and also such resolutions and bills as are necessary to provide for a fourth month interim supply;
Clearly, Mr. Speaker, if there was a provision in the order of April 26 such as was inserted in the order of June 26, there would be no argument at all. The fact that this provision is absent makes it clear that nothing here comes within the very clear exception under standing order 6 (5) (b), which states there can only be an interruption of a mandatory adjournment if it is provided under a standing order that the business shall be disposed of or concluded.
That is putting the matter as simply and as plainly as it is possible to put it. It is put for a deliberate purpose, namely to demonstrate the fact that 171 votes totalling a billion and a quarter dollars have not had any consideration at all in this house, and that the guillotine is falling without there being any possibility of the House of Commons doing the basic job its members were elected. We have failed to do what we were sent here to do.
I am not taking advantage of this situation from any technical point of view but on the basis that we must achieve proper rules, rules which will govern and bring this House of Commons back to the type of institution that the Canadian people want to see.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I feel a bit out of character coming to the defence of the government, but it is late at night and 1 suppose anything has to be anticipated.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Get back into character.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the correction I heard from the other side. I am supporting the position taken by Mr. Chairman in committee of the whole, and I am not out of character in doing that. The issue before us tonight is not whether we should or should not have a time limit on supply; that is a matter to be decided by the House of Commons. The issue is not how many departments we have finished and how many we have not finished.


An hon. Member:: That's a good red herring.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The issue is simply, do we finish the business of supply by taking the formal votes tonight or do we adjourn and take the votes tomorrow or on some other occasion.
I wish to point out that provisional standing orders 6(4) and 6(5) should be read in the
Supply-J ustice
light of standing order 6(4) of the old rules which existed before we adopted the present, temporary rules.


An hon. Member:: Oh?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just a moment. Do not say
"oh" so quickly. Standing order 6(4), before we adopted the temporary rules, read as follows:
When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
The point I wish to make is that it is a practice of long standing that when there is an order that something has to be concluded on a particular day, the adjournment time is ignored until that completion has been effected.
When we wrote temporary standing orders 6(4) and 6(5) we put together that old standing order and the provisions that we have made for the adjournment proceedings. If one will compare the language of the old standing order, which I have just read, with the exception that the hon. member for Carleton has read, temporary standing order 6(5)(b), one will see that this is what happened. It reads:
When a sitting Is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order-
Which we are doing:
-or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended-
Of course, they are:
-and that sitting shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion to adjourn moved by a minister of the crown.
My point is that the new, temporary standing orders at that point combined the general practice, that we do not adjourn until we have finished the day's business, with the special provisions relating to debates on adjournment proceedings.
I think, sir, it is therefore clear that you should rule that we continue to sit under the basis of standing order 6(5)(b), provided some other order says that this is an item of business which should be finished.
That provision, I believe, is set out for us in paragraph 5(c) of the special order of the house that was adopted on April 26, 1967. That order provided us with our rules for the

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
second session of this twenty seventh parliament. I hope the house will forgive me for reading paragraph 5(c) again; the hon. member for Carleton I know read it a few moments ago:-
Subject to the conditions specified below there shall be an overall limitation of thirty-eight days allotted to the business of supply during the session. For the purposes of this order the business of supply shall consist of supply motions; main estimates; interim supply with the exceptions noted below; supplementary and additional estimates with the exception noted below; and supply bills based on the foregoing.
I submit that this is the order that says -subject to what I shall say in a moment -that when the 38 days are over all the things set out in that paragraph must be done.


Richard Albert Bell: It must say so, surely.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, Mr. Speaker, that
provision was modified by this house in the special order which it passed unanimously on June 26 when it said, in paragraph 4, that the operation of paragraph 3 should not in any way preclude the adoption of all items in the committee of supply and the enactment of supply bills passed thereon within the 30-day period prescribed in the resolution adopted on April 26, 1967. I mention this because there is a reference to 30 days provided in the earlier order. How did 38 become 30? The reason is that in the meantime we had had two days on a supply motion, and we provided on June 26 that we would have the other six days at certain specified times in the fall. The combination of these things, however labyrinthine they may appear, means that we end with an order which says we must complete the business of supply, that is the estimates and the bills based thereon, in 30 days.
The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) agrees that we have had 30 days; they ended at ten o'clock tonight. Are we not, therefore, bound by an order made unanimously by the house which says that at the end of 30 days of supply, in view of what is provided in 5(c) of the order of April 26, 1967, we are bound to finish all these things including the supply bills?
I would be the first to admit that the order could be written a lot more clearly and I hope our committee will straighten this matter out. I admit there is an argument about the 30 days, but no one denies we are under an order this session to complete the work of supply in 30 days.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It says 38.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shall I go back and go over that ground again for the benefit of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)? My hon. friend behind me wants me to dispense.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member read out the section which says 30 days?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The special order of June 26 in paragraph 4 makes a reference to the 30 days provided for supply. It makes this reference to 30 days in a paragraph which actually speaks of 38. What happened to the other eight days? Two of them had already been used and the other six are provided for in paragraph three of the resolution of June 26.
As I say, it would be hard to make things more complicated, but if one takes time and patience to look at it, it is all here. We have agreed by unanimous decision of the house that we were to have 30 days on supply this session and four supply motions of two days each. We had one of these motions before the summer recess. We have had another two of them already. We are to get the last within 45 days after we came back following the summer recess. So I submit the 30 day limit is there. The hon. member for Carleton does not argue about this. All he says is that there is no provision for sitting late to do it tonight. So, if there is an over-all limitation of 30 days on the supply resolutions and the bills based thereon, it seems to me we should deal with them during those 30 days, and that means dealing with them tonight.
I am afraid that I do not see this as a major parliamentary issue. If the hon. member for Carleton wins his point, all that happens is that we will take these formal votes on the resolutions and on the supply bill tomorrow or some other day. He, or no one else would argue that there is room for any more debate. I am not just relying on common sense, Mr. Speaker. You do not get very far in this house by arguing on the basis of common sense. It seems to me that the putting together of these various rules and orders does result in the clear indication that we are supposed to do all of this work, including the supply bills-I emphasize that to the hon. member for Carleton-within 30 days. Unless we do it tonight we will not have complied with our own order adopted unanimously by the house.
November 2, 1967


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to repeat in a short form the argument made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with which I agree fully. The first point arises from the decision taken by the house and recorded in Votes and Proceedings of April 26, 1967, that there be established an over-all limit of 38 days for the business of supply. There is no debate or doubt about that.
In Votes and Proceeding of June 26 there is recorded a further decision of the house that the supply motions be segregated from the remaining business of supply, and because of that operation the time for supply, exclusive of supply motions, was limited to 30 days. There is no doubt about that. It is a matter of counting to decide when the 30 days are finished, and the count showed that the 30 days were finished at ten o'clock tonight. The hon. member for Carleton says that because there is another rule saying that the house adjourns at ten o'clock, this other rule supersedes the continuation of proceedings beyond ten o'clock and therefore we cannot proceed with the vote. That is the issue.
I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is correct when he refers to standing order 6(4) in the regular standing orders which says:
When it is provided in any standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment be forthwith disposed of or concluded, Mr. Speaker shall not adjourn the house until the specified proceedings be completed.
In other words this particular general standing order supersedes the operation of the normal adjournment proceedings because there is a business before the house to be completed.
I think it is made even clearer in provisional standing order 6(5)(b) which has already been read by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and which seems to me to provide the answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Carleton, which was: Are we entitled to continue beyond ten o'clock to dispose of all these resolutions? The answer is provided in this standing order, which reads:
When a sitting is extended pursuant to section (6) of this order-
That is irrelevant, as the hon. member for Carleton says.
-or when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the
Supply-Justice
ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended-
That provides the method by which the house is enabled to supersede the ten o'clock adjournment and to continue with the motions that are involved in the passage of the resolutions and the supply bills based thereon.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)


Richard Albert Bell: For the purpose of clarity would the minister indicate to me whether he is arguing that the old standing order 6(4) is still in effect? As I understand the situation that standing order, which was also referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is gone. It has been nullified completely. Such substance as it has is now in standing order 6(5) (b).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anything turns on that point. I think that 6(5) (b) provides for a resolution of the dilemma raised by the hon. member for Carleton, namely that this particular provision provides for the continuation of business beyond ten o'clock in order to dispose of the business that has been laid down under other standing orders.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, surely something turns upon the quoting of a repealed standing order as an authority?


An hon. Member:: What about standing order 6(4)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Nothing turns upon standing order 6(4), which has been read. It follows completely upon the standing order in effect now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, has not the language of the old standing order 6(4) been completely incorporated in the language of the new rule?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I said it was a foundation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word or two on this matter. I am surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the government house leader have to attempt to bemuse the house by reading standing order 6(4), which was revised and is no longer in existence. Their case is very weak indeed when they must rely on something which they, in their work

November 2, 1967
Supply-Justice
in the committee, struck out. It is quite obvious, too, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who was so anxious to amend and restrict the rules of this house, is attempting to bail out the government in the mistake they have made. They have failed to bring into this house an order such as was presented on June 26 of this year, an order which I was responsible for proposing to the hon. member. I thought that with his experience he would be able to carry on this fall, and consequently I did not go to him yesterday and tell him what he should do. But he cannot now extricate himself from this point.
The sensible thing, in order to save the position of Mr. Speaker, and the Chairman, is for the government house leader to admit his error and say that he will straighten this matter out with the various house leaders tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other contributions to this interesting debate I will attempt to bring some light to a very difficult situation. I must say that I have a great deal of sympathy for all hon. members who have tried to piece together the rules as they are now. This is nobody's fault. I think an honest effort has been made in recent months and years by hon. members to attempt to improve our rules. Whether we have succeeded is a matter of opinion.
I can readily see that it is not easy in a circumstance such as this to find out exactly what our rules say. I followed with interest the opinion and argument of the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell), when he made it originally with the Deputy Speaker in the chair and again when he stated it so clearly later on. He argues, among other things, a point which is of interest, that is, that when a similar situation arose previously, on June 26 last, it was required to be settled by an order to allow that all matters dealing with supply be concluded on that day.
It has been brought to my attention, and I believe this has been mentioned by hon. members in the course of the discussion, that in the original order of June 26 it was impossible to complete the 30 days that were allowed then until all departments had been called and the supply motions completed. It was then specified that one department would still be outstanding even if the fourth order was called. Under the order of June 26 as adopted, this provision was suspended, allowing the house to call all departments even before the four supply motions were called. Therefore, it seems to me we could
fMr. Churchill.]
complete the 30 days considering supply and even have one supply motion outstanding which perhaps could be called anytime between now and December 6.
While it was necessary on a previous occasion to have an order, this is no longer necessary since the 30 supply days could be called even before the four supply motions have been called.
Having dealt with this point to the best of my ability I have to refer hon. members, as has been done by the Deputy Speaker and by hon. members, to standing order 6(5)(b) which states, beginning at line 3 on page 5:
-when it is provided in any other standing order that the business under consideration at the ordinary time of adjournment shall be disposed of or concluded, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended and that sitting shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion to adjourn moved by a minister of the Crown.
There must be a purpose for saying that the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended, and that purpose in my mind is not just to allow members to go home at ten o'clock. Surely it must be for the purpose of doing business, and the business that has to be done at that point is the business of supply. I base my view in this regard on standing order 56 which deals with supply proceedings.
Standing order 56 was the subject of a suggested amendment in the report of the procedure committee which was concurred in by the house on April 26, 1967. In this resolution of the house there was a 38 day overall limitation during the session for the business of supply. This included four two-day debates on supply motions, leaving the balance of 30 days for supply. I shall not go into the question about the 36 days rather than 38 days because that has been explained quite clearly by hon. members who have taken part in this debate on the point of order.
If hon. members will now turn to page 50 they will read in the annotations to standing order 56, in the precise wording of the report and concurred in by the house, in paragraph (c):
Subject to the conditions specified below there shall be an overall limitation of thirty-eight days allotted to the business of supply during the session. For the purposes of this order the business of supply shall consist of supply motions; main estimates; interim supply with the exceptions noted below-
As the hon. member for Carleton has said, these are not relevant here. It continues:
-supplementary and additional estimates with the exception noted below; and supply bills based on the foregoing.
November 2, 1967

To my mind these words are extremely relevant; that is:
-supply bills based on the foregoing.
This means we must complete supply bills when the days expire. The standing order does not say we shall give consideration on supply during 30J days, 30 days and one hour or 31 days, so the extra day can be used to vote on supply motions when supply motions may be discussed and passed. It simply says within 30 days, and this is the decision of the house.
Having regard again to standing order 6(5)(b), the provision is that the house shall not be adjourned except pursuant to a motion moved by a minister of the crown. I have not heard a minister of the crown make such a motion. Having read and considered the standing orders as objectively as I can I have no alternative than to sustain the judgment of the Chairman of the committee.
[DOT] (11:10 p.m.)
And the house having resumed in committee:


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. The question before the committee is on Vote 1 of the Department of Justice.



DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependents as may be approved by treasury board of judges who die while in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $3,983,100.
Item agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to, on division:
Administration-
1. Departmental administration including the Canadian agricultural services co-ordinating committee, contributions to the Commonwealth agricultural bureaux, and a contribution to the agricultural economics research council in an amount equal to one-half the contributions to the council from other sources during the fiscal year but not exceeding $50,000, $6,652,800.
Research-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international society for horticultural science, an amount of $625,000 for grants in aid of agricultural research in universities and other scientific organizations in Canada and the costs of publishing departmental research papers as supplements to the "Canadian entomologist", $33,845,800.
10. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $6,000,000.
Supply-Agriculture
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite the procedure may I suggest that all the outstanding items should be deemed to have been carried, on division.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee so agreed?


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, if my memory serves me correctly there is some rule somewhere which says that every vote must be passed by the House of Commons individually. Am I not correct?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I shall call the votes individually. Is Item 15 agreed to?
The following items were agreed to on division:
Production and marketing-
Administration-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance including the administration of the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and contributions to assist in the marketing of agricultural products subject to the approval of treasury board, $3,161,200.
17. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $109,000,000.
Animal and animal products-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international dairy federation, $7,950,300.
25. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $12,922,200.
Plant and plant products-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $8,271,900.
35. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $268,000.
35a. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $65,000.
Health of animals-
40. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the office international des dpizooties, and authority, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year from packers requiring special services, $16,132,800.
45. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,381,000.
Board of grain commissioners-
50. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international association of cereal chemistry and authority to purchase screenings, $8,128,200.
51.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,267,000.

November 2, 1967
Supply-External Affairs Land rehabilitation, irrigation and water storage projects-
Irrigation and water storage projects in the western provinces including the South Saskatchewan river project, the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act program, land protection, reclamation and development-
55. Administration, operation and maintenance including Canada's fee for membership in the international commission on irrigation and drainage, $9,688,000.
60. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,645,000.
Canadian dairy commission-
65. Administration, operation and maintenance, $208,700.
Farm credit corporation-
70. Estimated amount required to provide for the operating loss of the farm credit corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968, $3,900,000.



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION

[Stage Direction]
L22a. To extend the purposes of the revolving fund established by loans, investments and advances vote L18e, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, to include (e) the financing, in the 1967-68 and subsequent years, of the travel accounts rendered by carriers for services arranged by the central travel service on a recoverable basis for federal government departments and agencies, $1.
Item agreed to, on division.

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
Research and investigations on water resources- 75a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,150,000.
B-Dominion coal board-
91a. Acquisition of equipment for installation in the Princess colliery of the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company Limited and the collieries of the Dominion Coal Company Limited in accordance with agreements to be entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, by the dominion coal board and the said companies, $2,000,000.
L25a. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $13,000,000.

[Stage Direction]
L8a. Advances to Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, subject to such terms and conditions as the Governor in Council may approve, to make an advance payment to Deuterium of Canada Limited based on the value of one year's production by that corporation of heavy water, $16,400,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
[The Chairman.]

[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the staffs of the international organizations detailed in the estimates and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of commissioners (international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China), secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; and authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; cultural relations and academic exchange programs with other countries, $42,260,000.
10. Construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, $5,085,000.
15. Assessments, grants, contributions and other payments to International (including Commonwealth) organizations and international multilateral economic and special aid programs as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay assessments in the amounts and in the currencies in which they are levied, and authority to pay other amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the total of such payments may exceed the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1967, which is, $34,437,700.
External aid office-
30. Salaries and expenses, $2,521,700.
A-Department-
External aid office-
30b. Salaries and expenses, $427,000.
35. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $130,100,000.
35b. Economic, technical, educational and other assistance as detailed in the estimates, $139,000.
B-International joint commission-
40. Salaries and expenses of the commission and Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the commission, $489,200.
External aid office-
L30. Special loan assistance for developing countries in the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, for the purpose of undertaking such economic, educational and technical projects as may be agreed upon by Canada and the developing countries or recognized international development institutions, $90,000,000.
November 2, 1967
[Stage Direction]
DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Fisheries management and development-
15b. Grants, contributions and subsidies in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the subvote titles listed in the details of estimates, $3,350,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
Administration-
3a. Contribution to the province of Alberta, pursuant to an agreement entered into with the approval of the governor in council by Canada with the province, of amounts equal to one-half of the amounts confirmed by the province as having been spent by it for camp ground and picnic area developments; amount required to complete the payments to the province, $77,580.
Indian affairs-
5b. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants, contributions and special payments, $2,770,000.
Northern program-
20a. Administration, operation and maintenance- To extend the purposes of Indian Affairs and Northern Development vote 20 of the main estimates for 1967-68 to include the grants and contribution detailed in these estimates, $1.
25a. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-To increase to $27,547,000 the authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year, $1.
30b. Northern mineral assistance grants-To extend the purposes of Indian affairs and northern development vote 30 of the main estimates for 1967-68 to increase to $18,000,000 the authority to make commitments in respect of northern mineral development assistance grants in the current and subsequent fiscal years, $1.
33a. Payment to the government of the Northwest Territories in accordance with an agreement to be entered into by the Minister of Finance, with the approval of the Governor in Council, on behalf of the government of Canada, and the commissioner of the Northwest Territories on behalf of the government of the Northwest Territories, such agreement to provide (on such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon) that the government of the Northwest Territories will not impose, levy or collect individual income taxes, corporation income taxes, corporation taxes or succession duties, as defined in the agreement; the payment to the government of the Northwest Territories under the agreement to be calculated on the following bases:
(a)	A subsidy of eighty cents per head in respect of the population of the Northwest Territories as determined by the 1961 census;
(b)	A grant in aid of the government and council of the Northwest Territories of $30,000; and
Supply-Indian Affairs
(c)	An operating grant in the amount of $4,740,780 which, when added to the payments under paragraphs (a) and (b), will equal the estimated operating deficit of the government of the Northwest Territories in the current fiscal year; together with payments in respect of amortization payments on outstanding loans for capital expenditures in the Northwest Territories, as provided in the agreement; (the amount payable in respect of the current fiscal year to be reduced by the aggregate of ail interim payments made pursuant to Indian Affairs and Northern Development vote 32 of the main estimates for 1967-68), $270,780..
Indian Affairs-
L44a. To provide that the total amount of outstanding advances at any one time with respect to loans to Indians under section 69 of the Indian Act, notwithstanding subsection 5 thereof, shall not exceed $2,000,000, $1.
Northern program-
L46a. To increase to $640,000 the amount authorized for loans to the government of the Yukon Territory by loans, investments and advances vote 672, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1962, which vote authorizes the making of mortgage loans for low cost housing to residents of the territory; additional amount required, $400,000.
L50a. Loans to the government of the Northwest Territories in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council for capital expenditures during the period of April 1, 1967 to March 31, 1969 to be provided for in the financial agreement to be entered into between the government of Canada and the commissioner of the Northwest Territories pursuant to Indian Affairs and Northern Development vote 33a of these estimates, $2,234,105.
L5la. To extend the purposes of Indian Affairs and Northern Development votes L51a, Appropriation Act No. 9, 1966, and L51g, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1967, to authorize loans and advances to Eskimos on the same terms and conditions, for the same purposes and subject to the same provisions, including authority to forgive repayment thereof, as loans made to Indians pursuant to the said votes, $1.
L52a. Loans to the government of the Northwest Territories in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council for capital costs incurred in establishing the government of the Northwest Territories in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, $800,000.
L54a. To increase to $820,000 the amount authorized for loans to the government of the Northwest Territories by loans, investments and advances votes 674, Appropriation Act No. 2, 1962 and L24a, Appropriation Act No. 10, 1964, which votes authorize the making of mortgage loans for low cost housing to residents of the territories; additional amount required, $250,000.
Northern Canada power commission-
L55b. Advances to the Northern Canada power commission for the purpose of capital expenditures in accordance with section 15 of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, $941,000.
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1967
Supply-Industry
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Departmental administration, Including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,568,300.
la. Departmental administration, $801,000.
5. To sustain technological capability in Canadian industry by supporting selected defence development programs, on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $60,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $25,000,000.
10. To advance the technological capability of Canadian manufacturing industry by supporting selected civil (non-defence) development projects, on terms and conditions approved by the treasury board, and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $40,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $13,000,000.
15. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council (formerly under Canadian maritime commission), $30,000,000.
15a. Capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels in accordance with regulations of the Governor in Council, $12,000,000.
20. Payments, subject to the approval of the treasury board, for certain programs to assist defence manufacturers:
(a)	with defence plant modernization, by paying one-half the cost of acquisition of new equipment: and
(b)	in the establishment of production capacity and qualified sources for production of component parts and materials, $12,000,000.
LOO. Loans, in the current and subsequent fiscal years and in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, to assist manufacturers of automotive products in Canada, including materials suppliers and tooling manufacturers, affected by the Canada-United States agreement on automotive products to adjust and expand their production: such loans to be made for the purpose of acquisition, construction, installation, modernization, development, conversion or expansion of land, buildings, equipment, facilities or machinery and for working capital: and to authorize, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, total commitments of $60,000,000 for the foregoing purposes during the current and subsequent fiscal years, $30,000,000.
L65. Advances, subject to the approval of the treasury board, to assist defence manufacturers with defence plant modernization in amounts not to exceed one-half of the cost of the acquisition of new equipment, such advances to be recovered on sale of the equipment to the defence manufacturers, $12,000,000.
[The Chairman.]
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, $40,693,000.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $9,300,000.
10. Scholarships and grants in aid of research,
[Stage Direction]
15. Assistance towards research in industry under terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current year not to exceed a total amount of $6,900,000, $5,700,000.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,972,000.
Labour relations-
5. Administration including the promotion of labour-management consultation, $1,385,000.
Labour standards and benefits-
10. Administration, including the government's contribution to annuities agents pension account in accordance with regulations made pursuant to vote 181, Appropriation Act No. 5, 1961, and to deem, for the purposes of sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Government Employees Compensation Act, any international commission with headquarters in Canada and any international commission with headquarters in another country, who employs Canadian citizens, to be a commission established to perform a function or duty on behalf of the government of Canada, $2,703,000.
Research and development-
15. Administration including the co-ordination and advancement of Canada's role in international labour affairs, the development and co-ordination of departmental emergency plans, and the administration of transitional assistance to workers in automotive manufacturing and parts industries, and related activities, $1,576,000.
20. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $1,749,000.
B-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-
35. To reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for expenditures on housing research and community planning, for the amounts of loans for sewage treatment projects forgiven to a province, municipality or municipal sewerage corporation, for contributions made for an urban renewal scheme or pursuant to an urban renewal agreement, for losses resulting from the operation of public housing projects, and for net losses resulting from the sale of mortgages from its portfolio, $25,300,000.
November 2, 1967
[Stage Direction]
L70. Advances to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in respect of housing and land development projects undertaken jointly with the governments of the provinces, in respect of loans to municipalities for the construction or expansion of sewage treatment projects, in respect of loans made to assist in the implementation of an urban renewal scheme, and for the acquisition, development, construction or improvement of land and buildings, $63,900,000.
L71b. To increase by $225,000,000 the aggregate amount that may be advanced by the minister out of the consolidated revenue fund under subsection (1) of section 22 of the National Housing Act, 1954, for the purposes set out in that subsection; and to authorize Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in the case of any loan made to a province or a provincial agency under section ISA, 35C or 35D of the act, to take debentures as security for such loan in lieu of any other security required by those sections, $1.
[Stage Direction]
1. Administration of the Unemployment Insurance Act, including recoverable expenditures on behalf of the Canada pension plan, $42,480,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
The Senate-
Members of the Senate-
1. Allowance in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the Senate, $3,000.
5. General administration, $1,360,500.
House of Commons-
Members of the House of Commons-
10. Allowances in lieu of residence to the Speaker of the House of Commons, and in lieu of apartments to the deputy speaker of the House of Commons; allowance to the deputy chairman of committees, $8,500.
10b. Allowances-To extend the purposes of legislation vote 10 of the main estimates for 1967-68 to include an allowance at the rate of $4,000 per annum to the assistant deputy chairman of committees; amount required for 1967-68, $3,100.
15. Expenses of the Canada-United States interparliamentary group, of delegates attending other inter-parliamentary conferences, expenses connected with visits of delegates to and from other legislatures, Canada's share of the expenses of the Commonwealth parliamentary association including the assessment for membership in the association, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $187,800.
20. General administration, $7,803,900.
DEBATES	3843
Supply-Manpower and Immigration Mr. Knowles: Are these items of the House of Commons being carried on division? Are they not unanimous?
Michael Starr: He is just wasting time. Let us carry on.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Carried on division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to, on division.
Library of Parliament-
25. General administration, $639,300.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
Departmental administration-
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, $4,206,600.
Development and utilization of manpower-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the administration of the manpower mobility regulations and payments in respect of persons who are being afforded occupational training under the audit occupational training program in accordance with regulations approved by the Governor in Council, $73,635,000.
6b. Payments in accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council to provinces and in respect of Indian bands under the municipal winter works incentive program during the 1967-68 and 1968-69 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding fifty per cent of the cost of labour incurred in a five-month period commencing either November 1 or December 1, 1967, as selected by the province or Indian band, and in the case of projects in designated areas within the meaning of the Department of Industry Act, sixty per cent of such cost; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to provinces in respect of previous municipal winter works incentive programs, $5,000,000.
10. Grants, contributions and subsidies in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $206,825,000.
10b. Grants, contributions and subsidies in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates, $25,000,000.
12b. To deem for purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act and the public service terms and conditions of employment regulations that Mrs. Mina Popovich was, from January 11, 1957 to October 16, 1961, inclusive, employed in the public service and on leave of absence without pay as if order in council P.C. 1957-53/626 of May 3, 1957, had not been passed, $1.
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1967
Supply-Privy Council
Immigration-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance, including trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of treasury board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants and $35,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $20,641,000.
Program development-
20. Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,751,600.
25. Grants, contributions and subsidies as detailed in the estimates, $3,525,000.
Immigration appeal board-
30. Administration, operation and maintenance, $311,000.
[Stage Direction]
Pensions and other benefits-
49a. To authorize the treasury board, for the purpose of calculating pensions under sections 13 and 14 of the Defence Services Pension Continuation Act, to prescribe the pay and allowances deemed to have been received on and after October 1, 1966 by men of the Canadian Forces below the rank of warrant officer, $1.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
Health insurance and resources-
8a. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $182,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
lb. Postal services, $10,435,300.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Privy council-
1. Maintenance and operation of the Prime Minister's residence, $40,600.
Ministers without portfolio-
5. Payment, notwithstanding anything in the Financial administration Act or the Senate and House of Commons Act respecting the independence of parliament, to each member of the Queen's privy council for Canada who is a minister for whom no salary or allowance in addition to the allowances under section 33 and section 44 of the Senate [The Chairman.]
and House of Commons Act is provided (the acceptance of which shall not render such member ineligible or disqualify him as a Member of the House of Commons) of a salary of $7,500 per annum and pro rata for any period less than a year, $15,000.
10. General administration including $40,000 for research grants and contributions, $2,501,300.
A-Privy council-
10a. General administration, $1,107,500.
15. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $2,058,300.
15a. Expenses of the royal commissions listed in the details of estimates, $600,000.
17.	Expenses of the science council of Canada, $190,000.
17a. Expenses of the science council of Canada, $255,500.
18.	Expenses related to the 1967 visits of state, $1,577,000.
18a. Expenses related to the 1967 visits of state, $765,100.
19.	Payments to the Company of Young Canadians. $2,445,000.
B-Economic council of Canada-
20.	Administration, $1,522,800.
20a. Administration, $100,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Office of the secretary to the Governor General, $540,600.
Item agreed to, on division.
5. To authorize reimbursement to the Lieutenant-Governors of the provinces of Canada of the costs of travelling and hospitality incurred in the exercise of their duties up to a maximum per annum for each as detailed in the estimates, $145,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $19,734,600.
Accommodation services-
5. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, including the provision, on a recoverable basis of accommodation and related services for Canada pension plan purposes, and authority to provide assistance to (a) the international civil aviation organization in the form of office accommodation at less than commercial rates and (b) the Ottawa civil service recreation association in the form maintenance services in respect of the W. Clifford Clark memorial centre in Ottawa, $76,615,000.
November 2, 1967
[Stage Direction]
5a. Maintenance and operation of public buildings and grounds, $8,947,00.
10. Acquisition of equipment and furnishings other than ofiice furnishings, $1,485,000.
15. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is	individually	listed	in	the details	of
estimates, $48,165,000.
15b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is	individually	listed	in	the details	of
estimates, $1.
15b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, public buildings (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $885,000.
Harbours and rivers engineering services-
20. Operation and maintenance, $7,924,000.
25. Construction or acquisition of equipment, $925,000.
30. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for. harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $31,430,000.
30a. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of the estimates, $1.
30b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the details of estimates, $3,137,000.
Roads bridges and other engineering services-
35. Operation and maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amount of the operating expenses of the New Westminster bridge, $6,901,000.
Supply-Public Works
40. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for the roads, bridges and other engineering works listed in the details of estimates, provided that the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of treasury board, $19,965,000.
40a. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, the roads, bridges and other engineering works listed in the details of estimates, provided that the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of treasury board. $1.
40b. Construction, acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for, the roads, bridges and other engineering works listed in the details of estimates, provided that the amounts within the vote to be expended on individually listed projects may be increased or decreased subject to the approval of treasury board, $1.
Trans-Canada highway-
50. Construction through national parks, $1,860,000. Testing laboratories-
55. Operation and maintenance, $1,303,700.
B-National capital commission-
60. Operation and maintenance, general administration and interest charges on outstanding loans that were made for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, $8,450,000.
65. Payment to the national capital fund, $14,650,000.
L35. Loans to the national capital commission in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in the national capital region, excluding property being acquired for the purpose of establishing what is commonly referred to as the "Greenbelt", $4,850,000.
L90. Loans to the national capital commission in the current and subsequent fiscal years in accordance with section 16 of the National Capital Act for the purpose of acquiring property in that area of the national capital region commonly referred to as the ''Greenbelt", $2,000,000.
* (11:20 p.m.)
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Departmental administration, $625,100.
5. Bankruptcy Act-Administration, $734,000.
10. Combines Investigation Act-Administration, $1,241,200.
15. Corporations branch, $239,200.
20. Patent division, copyright and industrial designs division and trade marks office including contributions to the international office for the
384$
November 2, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Secretary of State protection of literary and artistic works and the international office for the protection of industrial property, $4,158,500.
[Stage Direction]
1. Administration expenses, $998,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Registrar General.


[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
1.	Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $1,648,900.
2.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-national arts centre, $12,500,000.
Citizenship-
5. Administration, operation and maintenance including grants and contributions for language instruction and citizenship promotion, and grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $3,429,600.
Translation-
10. Translation bureau, $4,054,900.
National Museum of Canada-
15. Administration, operation and maintenance, $3,722,500.
B-Centennial commission-
35. General administration, including the national conference on the centennial of Confederation, $5,294,000.
35a. General administration, including the national conference on the centennial of confederation, $579,000.
40. Programs and projects of national significance including	grants	towards	such	programs	and
projects, $12,291,800.
40a. Programs and projects of national significance including	grants	towards	such	programs	and
projects, $3,068,400.
45. Payment to the centennial of Confederation fund to enable grants to be made to the provinces for local projects of a lasting nature (the total of such grants made from the said fund not to exceed $18,935,000) and to enable grants to be made to the provinces for projects included in the federal-provincial confederation memorial program, $6,235,000.
45a. Payment to the centennial of confederation fund to enable grants to be made to the provinces for local projects of a lasting nature (the total of such grants made from the said fund not to exceed $18,935,000) and to enable grants to be made to the provinces for projects included in the federal-provincial confederation memorial program, $7,000,000.
[The Chairman.]
D-National arts centre corporation-
50. Payments to the national arts centre corporation to be used for purposes set out in the National Arts Centre Act, $1,020,000-
E-Canada council-
55. Grant to the Canada council, within the meaning of section 20 of the Canada Council Act, to be used for the general purposes set out in section 8 of the act, $16,900,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and other expenses, $1,040,800.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
Canadian broadcasting corporation-
1. Grant in respect of the net operating amount required to discharge the responsibilities of the national broadcasting service, $140,147,000.
International broadcasting service-
5. International broadcasting service including authority to credit to the appropriation revenue from the rental of facilities in Montreal, Sackville and Vancouver to an amount of $470,000 and to re-expend these monies for the purposes of the international broadcasting service, $3,813,000.
Canadian broadcasting corporation-
L20. Loans in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the purposes of capital expenditures including capital expenditures relating to the international broadcasting service, $30,398,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Salaries and expenses of office, $140,900.
Item agreed to, on division.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Administration, production and distribution of films and other visual materials, $8,108,300.
5. Acquisition of equipment, $661,700.
[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, operation and maintenance, including the payment of $750,000 to the national gallery purchase account for the purpose of acquiring works of art in conformity with section 8 of the National Gallery Act, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $2,571,000.
Item agreed to, on division.
November 2, 1967
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Public archives-
1. General administration and technical services, $2,035,000.
B-National library-
5. General administration including a payment of $250,000 to the national library purchase account for the purpose of acquiring books, in conformity with section 12 of the National Library Act, $1,620,000.
Public archives and national library-
L80. To increase to $50,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund established by vote 529, Appropriation Act No. 6, 1956 for the purpose of producing, processing or dealing in micro film, additional amount required, $22,500.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Administration, publishing, selling and distribution of official documents and publications to departments and the public, and the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the treasury board may approve, $4,206,500.
lb. Administration, publishing, selling and distribution of official documents and publications to departments and the public, and the purchase for sale of such other publications and related material as the treasury board may approve, $488,000.
[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
1. Salaries and contingencies of the commission including compensation in accordance with the incentive award plan of the public service of Canada, and the public service bilingual and bicultural development program, $13,530,400.
la. Salaries and contingencies of the commission- To extend the purposes of public service commission vote 1 of the main estimates for 1967-68 to include the grant detailed in these estimates, $1.
5. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including the public service bilingual and bicultural development program, $1,197,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Secretary of State.


[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Departmentla. Departmental administration, and grants as detailed in the estimates, $6,250.
B-Correctional services-
12b. To authorize payments in the current and subsequent fiscal years to or on behalf of Frank Newton and Norman Newton in respect of personal injuries sustained by them in an explosion at North Surrey, B.C. on December 23, 1966,
(a)	in the case of Frank Newton, in an amount equal to the amount that would be payable under the Government Employees Compensation Act if the act were applicable less any amounts payable in respect of the injury by any insurance plan under which he was insured; and
(b)	in the case of Norman Newton, in an amount equal to such part of the amount that would be payable under the aforementioned act if the act were applicable as is determined by the workmen's compensation board of British Columbia to be required for his medical aid and rehabilitation less any amounts payable in respect of the injury by any insurance plan under which he was insured, $1.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Solicitor General.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE Special-
32b. Grant to the Pacific National exhibition, Vancouver, towards the cost of constructing a trade fair and sports building at exhibition park, Vancouver; the government of Canada's share not to exceed $2,000,000, $641,243.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to, on division.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


[Stage Direction]
The following items were agreed to on division:
A-Department-
Railways and steamships-
25b. Payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and for supplemental pension allowances to railway employees in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the details of the estimates-To extend the purposes of transport vote 25 of the main estimates, 1967-68 to include payments to the Canadian National Railways equal to the calendar year 1967 deficit, as approved by auditors of the Canadian National Railways, of the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways employees' provident fund and a further payment to the Canadian National Railways in an amount equal to the final deficit of the Canadian government merchant marine self insurance fund, $6,800,000.
Air services-
30b. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,463,000.
G-Atlantic development board-
95a. To authorize expenditures in the current and subsequent fiscal years, not exceeding in the aggregate $25,000,000, as the federal share of costs of a
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1967
Ways and Means
trunk highway program for the provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick in accordance with agreements entered into by the Atlantic development board and the respective provinces with the approval of the Governor in Council; estimated expenditure in 1967-68, $8,000,000,
100a. To authorize expenditures in the current and subsequent fiscal years, not exceeding in the aggregate $1,750,000, in accordance with agreements entered into by the Atlantic development board and the province of Newfoundland with the approval of the Governor in Council,
(a)	to cover the federal share of the cost of special housing assistance to any person who was a resident of and the owner of a home on Bell Island on June 30, 1966 and who on or after that date moved or moves to any other part of Canada; and
(b)	to provide mobility assistance similar to that provided under the manpower mobility program in respect of any resident of Bell Island who moves to any other part of Canada and who does not meet the requirements of the manpower mobility program; estimated expenditure in 1967-68, $1,000,000.
H-Canadian transport commission-
105a. Administration and to provide that upon proclamation of part I of the National Transportation Act the unexpended portion of the funds provided by any appropriation act with respect to the Air Transport Board, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and the Canadian Maritime Commission shall be transferred to the control of the Canadian Transport Commission, $200,000.
National harbours board-
LI06b. To provide for the purchase, acquisition, holding and disposition by the national harbours board in the current and subsequent fiscal years of debentures issued by the Saint John harbour bridge authority in accordance with the agreement entered into between Canada, the province of New Brunswick, the city of Saint John and the Saint John harbour bridge authority dated July 7, 1966, and referred to in loans, investments and advances vote LlOle, Appropriation Act No. 4, 1966, and to authorize advances to the national harbours board in the current and subsequent fiscal years, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, for such purpose, $18,000,000.
Air Canada-
L112a. Subject to terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council:
(a)	to provide for loans to Air Canada for the purpose of enabling Air Canada to make loans to British West Indian Airways Limited; and
(b)	to authorize Air Canada to make loans to, and to acquire, hold and dispose of notes of, and other securities issued by, British West Indian Airways Limited, $3,250,000.
General-
L114b. Acquisition of Twin-Otter Aircraft for leasing to Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited, in accordance with an agreement entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council, at a rent that will reimburse the crown for the cost of acquisition, and that will include an option
[The Chairman.]
to purchase the said aircraft, notwithstanding anything contained in the Surplus Crown Assets Act, $529,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the estimates of the Department of Transport. Shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Batten in the chair.
Mr. Benson moved:: Resolved, that toward making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1968 the sum of $1,134,395,455.83 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the resolution carry?


An hon. Member:: On division.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Benson thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-180 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March 1968.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, not until the bill is in our hands. We want to see whether it is correct, or whether the enormous sum of $1 billion should be passed without full consideration.


An hon. Member:: Start reading.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I hope the bill I have been given is in both languages.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have two English copies. I wish to compare the English with the French version.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Read one with each eye.
November 2, 1987


Edgar John Benson: the second reading of the biU.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order, please. House in committee of the whole on a bill entitled an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1968.
On Clause 2-$1,134,395,455.83 granted for 1967-68.


Auguste Choquette: How is the French version?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think there is a mistake in the French.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister
assure us that the bill is in the usual form and contains nothing which is not customary in such bills?


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Clause agreed to on division.
Clauses 3 to 6 inclusive agreed to on division.
Schedules A to C inclusive agreed to on division.
Clause 1 agreed to on division.
Title agreed to on division.
Preamble agreed to on division.
Bill reported.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Hon R. A. Bell (Carleion): I believe I have a right to make a speech this time to point out what a travesty of parliament we have experienced in the last hour and a half.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third
time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow we shall be
considering the broadcasting bill, and if that measure gets second reading we shall move it
Business of the House
to committee and take up capital punishment on Monday. If we do not complete second reading of the broadcasting bill I should like to have some consultation with the house leaders tomorrow on the question of whether we ought to continue with that bill or go on with capital punishment.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand this is the point at which, according to the rules, a minister of the crown should move that the house adjourn.


Mr. Drury:: I move that the house do now adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day]:



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

[Stage Direction]
1, 5, 10, 15, 17, 20, 25, 30, 35, 35a, 40, 45, 50, 51, 55, 60, 65, 70.

[Stage Direction]
L22a.

[Stage Direction]
75a, 91a, L25a.

[Stage Direction]
L8a.

[Stage Direction]
1, 10, 15, 30, 30b, 35, 35b, 40, L30.
[Stage Direction]
25, 30, 30b, 35, 45, 50, L40, L40a, 4b.
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
15b.
[Stage Direction]
3a, 5b, 20a, 25a, 30b, 33a, L44a, L46a, L50a, L51a, L52a, L54a, L55b.
[Stage Direction]
1, la, 5, 10, 15, 15a, 20, L60, L65.
[Stage Direction]
November 2, 1967
Business of the House
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS BOARD
1.	l.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 35, L70, L71b.	DEPARTMENT OF SECRETARY OF STATE 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, 35, 35a, 40, 40a, 45, 45a, 50, 55.
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION	BOARD OF BROADCAST GOVERNORS
1.	l.
LEGISLATION	CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
1, 5, 10, 10b, 15, 20, 25.	1, 5, L20.
DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION	CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER
1, 5, 6b, 10, 10b, 12b, 15, 20, 25, 30.	1.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE	NATIONAL FILM BOARD
49a.	1, 5.
	NATIONAL GALLERY OF CANADA
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE 8a.	l.
	PUBLIC ARCHIVES AND NATIONAL LIBRARY
DEPARTMENT OF POST OFFICE lb.	1, 5, L80.
	PUBLIC PRINTING AND STATIONERY
DEPARTMENT OF PRIVY COUNCIL	1, lb.
1, 5, 10, 10a, 15, 15a, 17, 17a, 18, 18a, 19, 20, 20a.	PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
GOVERNOR GENERAL AND LIEUTENANT-GOVERNORS	1, la, 5.
1, 5. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS	DEPARTMENT OF SOLICITOR GENERAL la, 12b.
1, 5, 5a, 10, 15, 15a, 15b, 20, 25 , 30 , 30a, 30b, 35, 40, 40a, 40b, 50, 55, 60, 65, L85, L90.	DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE 32b.
DEPARTMENT OF REGISTRAR GENERAL 1, 5, 10, 15, 20.	DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 25b, 30b, 95a, 100a, 105a, L106b, L112a, L114b.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 3, 1967