1967-11-29

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of standing order 26, and seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard), I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a matter of definite and urgent public importance, namely the unacceptable interference of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the domestic politics of two countries, France and England, with regard to the common market.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to tell you exactly why this is a matter of such urgent public importance-


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may not be a world shaking one, but according to standing order 26 this motion should not be moved on a Wednesday until after questions are called.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The point is well taken. That is why I called questions. The Speaker is always right.


Gilles Grégoire: I will come back to this after the question period, Mr. Speaker.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have any protests been received from the government of Newfoundland concerning the proposed discontinuance of passenger service by the Canadian National Railways in that province?
2.	If so, what was the date of such protest or
protests?
3.	What other organizations or individuals have made representations on the matter?
4.	Has the government of Newfoundland made representations in opposition to the proposed abandonment by the C.N.R. of the Placentia line?
5.	If so, what were the dates of such representations?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices as follows: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Mr. Harvey Keats, St. John's, Nfld; The Corner Brook and District Labour Council; The Newfoundland Federation of Municipalities; the city of St. John's; Gerald M. Stratton, Local Chairman Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, St. John's; Earle Thistle, President, Local 64, International Brotherhood Pulp Sulphate and Papermill Workers, Corner Brook, Nfld; E. E. Thoms, General Chairman, Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freshwater, Nfld; H. J. Mills, Secretary Treasurer, Corner Brook and District Labour Council; W. V. Hogan, Deputy Mayor, Stephenville Crossing, Nfld; George C. Greening, St. John's, and in addition, 187 signatures on printed petition forms clipped from newspapers.
4.	Yes.
5.	June 15, 1967.


C.N.R. SLEEPING CARS
Mr. Godin: 1.	How many sleeping cars does the Canadian National Railway own?
2.	How many are in use?
3.	How much does the Canadian National Railway spend each year on the maintenance of one of these cars?
4.	How many cars have been built since 1930 and how much have they cost?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The Canadian lines' ownership totals 401 sleeping cars of all types.
2.	During peak travel periods, all these cars are in use. During the balance of the

November 29, 1987
Questions
year, utilization varies between 80 per cent and 100 per cent.
3.	On an average, approximately $13,520.
4.	249 at a cost of $30,072,431, which includes original cost plus subsequent capitalized additions.


REPAIRS TO C.N.R. BRIDGES, QUEBEC
Mr. Godin: Did any companies carry out repairs worth $50,000 or more to Canadian National Railway bridges, in Quebec between 1955 and 1965, and if so (a) what companies (b) where are their head offices located?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: (a) and (b) Yes, Intrusion Prepakt Limited of Toronto and R. F. Walsh Co. Ltd. of Ville Lasalle, Quebec.


C.N.R. CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Gregoire: 1.	What were the capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways for each of the past three years?
2.	What is the breakdown by province?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. 1966, $175,608,859; 1965, $136,226,815; 1964, $134,981,909.
Funds for such expenditures are derived from depreciation reserves, salvage and sale of preferred stock to the government pursuant to the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act.
2.	As the railway company does not compile its capital budget nor does it administer the system by provinces, the information is not available in the form asked.


UNDERGROUND WATER BASIN, PRAIRIE PROVINCES
Mr. Enns: 1.	When was a survey undertaken to trace an underground water basin in the prairies?
2.	Has it been possible to trace such an underground stream to the Yellowstone or Missouri river systems?
3.	In what quantity, where and at what level is this natural resource located?


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secreiary fo Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.	General groundwater studies in the prairies
[Mr. Byrne.)
have been undertaken by the Geological Survey of Canada since 1842 and some 300 reports have been published. A number of investigations of buried river channels in particular have been conducted by the Geological Survey of Canada and provincial agencies and universities since 1946.
2.	The pre-glacial Missouri buried river valley has been traced from N. Dakota into S.E. Saskatchewan and is joined by the preglacial Yellowstone buried valley 15 miles north of the international border.
3.	The Saskatchewan research council found that the buried valley aquifers in Saskatchewan have a potential water supply capacity of several million gallons per day. At Estevan the aquifer lies between 102 and 378 feet below ground level.


SANDY BEACH, QUE.-CLEARING WORK AT DOCK
Mr. Blouin: Did the Department of Transport have any clearing work done at Sandy Beach, Quebec, dock during the winter 1965-66 and, if so (a) who was the contractor in charge of this work (b) how much was this contractor paid?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes (a) Gaspe Equipment and Transportation Company Limited employed on hourly basis as service required, (b) $426.21.


FUNDY NATIONAL PARK CONCESSIONS
Mr. Bell (Saint John-: Albert):
With respect to the concessions at Fundy national park in New Brunswick (a) is there any restriction against non-Canadian citizens holding concessions (b) are said concessions presently held by Canadians (c) what is the over-all departmental policy in this regard?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (a) No. (b)
All concessionaires in Fundy national park are residents of New Brunswick. Proof of citizenship is not required, (c) Concessions are awarded on the basis of the applicant's related experience, service to the public, personal suitability, financial position, ability to operate the concession and the financial return to the crown.
November 29, 1967


ASSISTANCE FOR ADVANCED PILOT TRAINING
Mr. Brand: 1.	What government financed courses are available for the advanced training of pilots of helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft?
2.	Have any of these courses for commercial pilots been paid for in their entirety by the federal government and, if so, what class of commercial pilots has benefited from this government support, how many have there been, and from what branches of commercial flying do they come?
3.	Has the government any plan to extend such aid to any commercial pilots in order to improve their flying qualifications?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, so far as the Department of Transport is concerned the answer to the question is the following.
1.	The Department of Transport does not finance advanced training courses for pilots on any type of aircraft.
2.	The answer is, not applicable.
3.	The answer is that consideration has been given to aiding commercial pilots to improve their flying qualifications but departmental studies in this regard have not been finalized and no further statement can be made at this time.


SAINT JOHN, N.B.-FEDERAL TAKE OVER OF AIRPORT
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the federal government agreed to take over the airport at Saint John, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, on what date will the takeover take place?
3.	Will the employment and benefits of all present employees be protected at the time of such a takeover?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.
2.	When funds are available for such an undertaking.
3.	The employment and benefits of all permanent employees on the airport establishment at time of negotiations will be protected at takeover in accordance with government policy.


DIVERSION PROGRAM FOR SURPLUS POTATOES
Mr. Laprise: 1.	During the year 1967 did the federal government, either alone or in collaboration with the provinces, participate in a program to divert surplus potatoes from the 1966 crop for non-food purposes and, if so, what amount was allocated to each province?
Questions
2.	What amount was allotted per barrel or hundredweight, and for what quantities?
3.	What were these potatoes used for?
4.	Were subsidies granted for exportation and, if so, on (a) what amount (b) what quantities?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Trade and Commerce as follows:
1.	A price stabilization program for the diversion of surplus potatoes from the 1966 crop for non-food purposes was announced on March 22nd, 1967. No specific amount of assistance was allocated to each province.
2 and 3. Assistance was provided: (a) for starch diversion programs, (i) during March and April 1967 of $1.20 per barrel; (ii) during May, June and July 1967 of $1.25 per barrel;
(b)	for livestock feed programs of 75 cents per hundredweight; (c) for approved provincial diversion programs of 50 cents per hundredweight.
Assistance for each producer under programs (a) and (b) was limited to 1,000 barrels; and for program (c) to 5,000 barrels less the number of barrels upon which assistance has been received under programs (a) and (b).
4.	No.


ICEBREAKING FLEET
Mr. Coaies: 1.	What is the size of the Department of Transport's icebreaking fleet at the present time and what was the size of this fleet in 1955, 1960 and 1965?
2.	How many individuals are directly employed on the icebreakers and what was the amount paid to these employees in salary and wages in the year 1966?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The Department of Transport's icebreaking fleet at the present time totals 19 vessels. This total includes 15 lighthouse supply and buoy vessels built to icebreaker standards. The totals for 1965, 1960 and 1955 were 19, 17 and five respectively.
2.	There are 1,122 individuals directly employed on Department of Transport icebreakers. Salaries and wages paid to these employees in 1966 totalled $6,267,158.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY
Mr. Coafes: 1.	What was the initial cost to the government of Canada in the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway and what proportion of the over-all cost does this represent?

November 29, 1967
Questions
2.	On what basis was this capital cost amortized, at what interest rate, over how many years, what is the annual amount required to retire the capital cost, and what portion of this amount represents interest?
3.	Have the annual payments been made?
4.	What is the total amount of capital expenditures made on the St. Lawrence seaway since its initial construction and what portion of this amount has been the responsibility of the government of Canada?
1.	Initial Capital Cost
5.	What is the estimated cost of twinning the Welland canal and when will this project be completed?
6.	What were the annual receipts from tolls received by the St. Lawrence seaway authority for the year 1966?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:

Montreal-
Lake Ontario Welland section	canal
Cost at 31st December 1959	 $284,971	$ 25,720
Value of assets entrusted to SLSA by
order in council P.C. 1959-204	 -	130,676
Total	Grand
Canada	IT. S. A.	total
(000's $)
$310,691	$123,317	$434,008130,676	-	130,676284,971	156,396	441,367	123,317	564,684-	-	(78.2%)	(21.8%)	(100.0%)2.	(a) Montreal-Lake Ontario section-The repayment conditions under which loans were effected from the government of Canada provided that loans should be amortized with interest over the 50 year period 1960-2009. Moneys have been borrowed at varying rates, the average rate at December 31, 1966, being 4.4 per cent. As of December 31, 1966, the annual amount required to repay the debt, together with interest, during the years 19672009 is $19.3 million dollars. If the 1967 payment was made the amount of interest included would be $16.3 million but this would decline each year thereafter and the amount of payment on account of principal would increase.
(b) Welland canal-There is no provision for the amortization of or interest on the amount of $130.7 million representing the value of entrusted assets.
4.
Amortization and interest provisions with respect to the initial capital cost were similar to those for the Montreal-Lake Ontario section. Some time after Welland Canal tolls were suspended in 1962, however, moneys borrowed in respect of the Welland canal were made interest free and the establishment of repayment terms was deferred until construction should be completed. Subsequently borrowings made after September 22, 1966, which amount to $9,727,000 at December 31, 1966, were made subject to deferred interest the payment of which, together with loan principal, is to commence after completion of construction on terms then to be decided.
3.	Payments have been made only to the extent of a portion of the interest accruing which is therefore in arrears.

Montreal-
Lake Ontario	Welland	Totalsection	canal	Canada
Additions January 1, 1960-December 31,
1966	 $ 44,066	$ 56,507
(000's $)
$100,573 (92.9%)

$ 7,737 (7 1%)
Grand total-December 31, 1966	
$329,037	$212,903	$541,940	$131,054-	-	(80.5%)	(19.5%)
Grand
total

(100.0%)

(100.0%)

November 29, 1967

5.	The estimated cost of twinning the Welland canal, and its estimated completion date, are presently unknown as this entire scheme, or possible alternatives, are presently under review by the government and no decision has as yet been taken.
6.	Montreal-Lake Ontario section, $17,281,526; Welland canal, nil.


CANADIAN AIR PASSENGER TRAFFIC
Mr. Hamilton: 1.	What percentage of Canadian residents have never flown on Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines in any one year or in all of the years between 1963 and 1966 inclusive?
2.	What percentage of passengers carried on Air Canada in 1966 took one way trips of 21 hours duration or less?
3.	What is the estimated percentage of Canadian residents likely ever to fly on Air Canada or Canadian Pacific Airlines when advanced subsonic and supersonic transport are utilized?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows. The answer to the first question is: 1964, estimated 88 per cent. The answer to the second question is:	not known. The answer to the third
question is: 1975, estimated 18 per cent.


REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the National Capital Commission retained consultants to make a study and prepare a report on development beyond the outer perimeter of the green belt in the national capital region?
2.	If so, who were so retained?
3.	Has a report been received?
4.	If so (a) what is the nature of the report (b) what conclusions does it reach and what recommendations does it make (c) what action, if any, is proposed thereon?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, jointly with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
2.	Project Planning Associates Limited, Toronto.
3.	The commission has received a report, but this has not yet been transmitted to the Minister of Public Works.
4.	The minister is not in a position to reply to this part of the question. See reply to part 3 above.
Questions


AGREEMENT WITH ITALY RESPECTING AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATES
Mr. Lambert: 1.	Is a delegation composed of officials of the Department of Transport, civil aviation branch, and possibly others, being sent to Italy to negotiate a reciprocal agreement between Canada and Italy for the granting of certificates of airworthiness to aircraft manufactured in the two countries?
2.	If so, what officials and what is to be the duration of their trip as well as the estimated cost?
3.	What is the purpose and/or necessity of such an agreement?
4.	Are Italian aircraft sold and operated in Canada, and what is the estimate of the number of such aircraft operating in Canada?
5.	Are Canadian aircraft sold and operated in Italy, and what is the estimate of the number of such aircraft operating in Italy?
6.	What is the level of customs duties imposed by Italy on aircraft of Canadian manufacture?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. No reciprocal agreement was being negotiated. However, two officials of the civil aviation branch, Department of Transport, recently visited Rome to explore the possibility of arriving at a technical understanding with technical officers of the Registro Aeronautico Italino to expedite the approval and validation of each other's certificates of airworthiness for aircraft, engines and aircraft accessories being manufactured in the two countries.
2.	The chief, aeronautical engineer and the superintendent, airworthiness requirements. The duration of the trip was one week and the estimated cost is $1,500.
3.	Not applicable, see answer to part 1.
4.	Yes, five Italian manufactured aircraft are licensed and operating in Canada.
5.	Yes, five Canadian manufactured aircraft are licensed and operating in Italy.
6.	The following customs duties, based on aircraft empty weight, are imposed by Italy on Canadian manufactured commercial aircraft: Up to 5,000 kilograms, 13.8 per cent;
5,000	kg. to 15,000 kg., 11.5 per cent; 15,000 kg. to 35,000 kg., 10.8 per cent.


AIRPORT IMPROVEMENTS, CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is it intended to make extensions to the runways and to the terminal building at the Charlottetown airport?
2.	If so, what is the date of commencement for such improvements?
3.	What other steps are contemplated to up-date the overall facilities at this airport?

November 29, 1967
Questions


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. The department's five-year planning includes provision for a new terminal building within the next five years. There are no plans to provide extensions to the runways.
2.	An exact commencement date for the terminal building cannot be established at this time since this will depend on the availability of necessary funds and the resolution of a number of operational considerations.
3.	A new maintenance garage and fire hall are also planned for same period as well as instrument landing system, all subject to availability of funds.


OTTAWA-BILINGUAL MUNICIPAL SIGNS
Mr. Caouelte: Has the government made representations to the city of Ottawa to have municipal signs made bilingual?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No. The federal government has arranged however for signs to be bilingual on all property under the control of the National Capital Commission.


PENSIONS OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired armed forces personnel
are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets:	(a) less than $20 per
month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired armed forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of armed forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 12; (b) 70; (c) 237; (d) 317;
(e)	329; (f) 292; (g) 465; (h) 588; (i) 659;
(j)	3,353; (k) 3,968; (1) 3,681; (m) 2,337; (n) 3,620.
2. (a) 2; (b) 22; (c) 53; (d) 121; (e) 184;
(f) 202; (g) 170; (h) 184; (i) 143; (j) 544;
(k)	211; (1) 95; (m) 38; (n) 28.
[Mr. Macquarrie.l
3.
Province	Retired Personnel	WidovNewfoundland	45	6Prince Edward Island	118	9Nova Scotia	1736	149New Brunswick	490	75Quebec	1994	207Ontario	8462	897Manitoba	732	93Saskatchewan	245	45Alberta	1322	121British Columbia Northwest Territories	4036	308and Yukon	359	1Outside Canada 4. 33; $28.88	389	86


PAYMENT TO PRIVATE STATIONS FOR C.B.C. NETWORK PROGRAMS
Mr. Simard: Do private television stations receive any remuneration for carrying C.B.C. network programs?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the C.B.C. that private television stations affiliated with the corporation receive payment for the sponsored C.B.C. network programs they carry. They receive no payment for broadcasting unsponsored C.B.C. programs. These are supplied to them free of charge by the corporation which pays all production and delivery costs.


HOMES FOR OLDER PERSONS
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Since 1965, how many homes for elderly persons have been built (a) in Canada (b) in each province?
2.	What was the cost of these homes for each province, and how many beds are provided?
3.	Are any projects of this nature at present under study and, if so, how many?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1 and 2. The following table provides data on loans approved for housing elderly persons under the National Housing Act, Sections 16, 16A, 35A and 35D for the period January, 1965 to October 31, 1967.
November 29, 1967

Questions
Gross NHA loans approved for housing elderly persons under the National Housing Act, Sections 16, 16A, 35A and 35D, January 1965-October 31, 1967
Area
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Inland
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia...
Canada	
3. As at November 23, 1967, approximately 190 projects for housing elderly persons were under study.


OPERATIONS OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK
Mr. Godin: 1.	What losses have been sustained by the Industrial Development Bank each year since its inception?
2.	What sum was transferred for each of these years from the profits earned by this bank to the credit of the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: 1. The net amount of loans written off by the Industrial Development Bank each year since its inception have been:
Fiscal year	Net write offs
ending	(thousands
Sept. 30	of dollars)
1945	_
1946	_
1947	_
1948	34
1949	33
1950	66
1951	3
1952	2
1953	25
1954	154
1955	37
1956	_
1957	54
1958	63
1959	815
1960	(412)*
1961	244
1962	250
1963	129
1964	198
1965	573
1966	393
Number of loans	Number of dwelling units	Number of hostel beds	Estimated cost $0002	16	45	5129	185	172	3,0144	95	76	1,6266	33	245	2,19924	262	1,373	12,45270	3,578	1,298	50,72534	575	643	9,88145	285	1,421	12,5331	1	20	21738	1,341	220	14,632233	6,371	5,513	107,791
* Includes transfer of $315,000 interest previously unapplied and held in suspense.
2. There have been no transfers of profits earned by the Industrial Development Bank to the Bank of Canada.
MANPOWER OFFICE, TROIS-RIVlilRES, QUE.


Mr. Mongrain: 1.	On what date did the federal manpower office in Trois-Rivieres begin its operations?
2.	How many employees are on the staff of that office?
3.	So far, how many employments did that office provide for the unemployed?
4.	How many interviews were granted?
5.	How many persons who are now under training have benefited from federal maintenance allowances?
6.	What area is now under the jurisdiction of the federal manpower office at Trois-Rivieres?
7.	What is the name of the manager of that office?
8.	When was he officially appointed to that position?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. The original employment office was opened in June 1941 under the Unemployment Insurance Commission. On 1 April 1965 the responsibility for its function was transferred to the Department of Labour and physical separation of premises from the Unemployment Insurance Commission took place in October 1965. On 1 January 1966 this office came under the jurisdiction of this department and is now called Canada Manpower Centre.
2. 32, as of 22 November, 1967.

November 29, 1967
Questions
3.	Total number of placements since January 1, 1967 was 8,300. No separate count is kept for placement of unemployed people.
4.	37,550.
5.	255.
6.	A 10 to 20 mile wide strip along the St. Lawrence from Yamachiche to Ste. Anne de la Perade on the north shore and a large part of Nicolet County on the south shore.
7.	Roger Bertrand.
8.	November 1, 1967.


MINIMUM STANDARDS IN DRUG PRODUCTS
Mr. Thompson: 1.	Does the food and drug directorate maintain the desired standard minimum requirements for different products containing the same equivalent of drugs?
2.	If so, how are the required minimum standards maintained in drugs manufactured in Canada and sold to the Canadian public?
3.	Has there been recently an evaluation of brands of phenylbutazone tablets and, if so (a) how many brands were evaluated (b) how many brands failed to meet minimum requirements of the regulations appended to the Food and Drugs Act (c) was there a substantial difference in the brands which failed to meet the requirements of the regulations (d) was it found that such brands reacted differently within the human body?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes.
2.	The standards are maintained by manufacturers and are checked periodically by the food and drug directorate of the Department of National Health and Welfare for conformity.
3.	(a) Yes. Sixty-three sample tests representing 20 different brands of phenylbutazone dosage forms were performed during the period January 1966 to November 1967. (b) There were six cases where a product failed to meet requirements, (c) Yes. Of the six cases, three showed substantial differences from the requirement, (d) No clinical tests were done within the Department of National Health and Welfare.


ROADS TO RESOURCES GRANTS
Mr. Germa: 1.	Are grants still available under the roads to resources program?
2.	If so, what are the criteria for establishing qualification for such a grant?
3.	Does construction of an access road to Lauren-tian university in Sudbury, Ontario, come within the ambit of the criteria referred to?


John (Jack) Davis: 1.	No. All moneys under the roads to resources program are now spent or committed.
2 and 3. Answered by 1.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Are there any government of Canada wharves or docks to which public access is restricted by any legal order?
2.	If so, what is the location of such wharves or docks and by what level of government was the restriction enacted?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, after having proposed my motion, I wonder now whether you will allow me to put forward my arguments as to the urgency of this debate.
First of all, as required under paragraph (3) of standing order 26, I should like to hand over to you a statement of the matter I propose to discuss. Here it is, Mr. Speaker.
Monday morning, in London, as he was going to be awarded the freedom of the city, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) saw fit to depart from every Canadian custom by meddling in an inadmissible manner with internal political matters involving England and France, and by seeking to dictate to France a political line of action.
I should like also, Mr. Speaker so as to support my argument and show the urgency of this debate, to repeat the sentence which the Prime Minister used yesterday in this house when he said:
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, in this case it is intolerable that a head of a foreign state or government should recommend a course of political or constitutional action-
And I could add: which would undermine the common market. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) used the same sentence.
Mr. Speaker, to continue the statement of facts-
November 29, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must state the facts which speak in favour of an immediate debate. He cannot state the facts as he would do if a debate had been allowed.
What matters, at this time, is to determine whether there is an urgency of debate, that is, if the debate suggested by the hon. member should take place today rather than tomorrow or another day.


Gilles Grégoire: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that the debate is urgent and should be held today because there is in Canada, at the present time, a growing aversion for the interference of the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) in the affairs of another country.
To wit, the editorial in this morning's Le Devoir and the editorial in today's La Presse in which the Prime Minister is clearly and categorically blamed for having interfered inadmissibly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I feel the hon. member is not dealing at all with the matter of the urgency of debate but that he is giving instead, the speech he would give to the house if the motion were accepted. I suggest to him that he should not continue along those lines.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I suggest we have a debate immediately before the escalation of the expected quarrel between our two motherlands, France and England, which will have been willed by the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have listened with the utmost patience and goodwill to the remarks of the hon. member and I cannot truly believe that the point he raises justifies the adjournment of the business of the house to discuss his grievance. There will be other opportunities in the next few days. It is expected that discussions of a general nature will probably arise before next weekend and the hon. member will then have the opportunity to speak of the grievance he has just raised.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I now, in one simple sentence, put forward my key argument on the urgency of debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to have given all the key arguments but he has failed to open the door to the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: There is one left.
Motion for Papers MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, would Your Honour be kind enough to call motion No. 33?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

REPORTS ON HARP PROJECT Motion No. 33-Mr. Harkness:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of reports which have been made to the government on the HARP project, and in particular those made by Dean Ruptash of Carleton University and by Mr. Brightwell of the defence research board.
He said: I had a brief discussion with the minister in connection with this motion and I ask that it stand until that discussion has been completed.
Motion stands.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the danger of air pollution and the urgent need of action to deal with it, would the minister consider referring this whole subject to the Dominion Council of Health for study and a report, with recommendations, to the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I indicated yesterday, this whole question was considered at the recent conference of the Dominion Council of Health. A number of recommendations were developed at that meeting, and these were communicated to me recently.


Michael Starr: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In the light of those recommendations would the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues consider taking some immediate action?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister will be bringing them before his colleagues without delay.

November 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION



INQUIRY AS TO CONSIDERATION BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the discussions which are taking place at the Confederation of Tomorrow conference, and since the federal government itself is convening a conference to be held early in the new year, will the Prime Minister now consider the suggestion we have been making for some time that a special all-party committee be set up to look into this situation and endeavour to reach a consensus as to what constitution might best serve the needs of our time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already stated my opinion that at an appropriate time a committee of this house should be looking into this matter. I am not sure whether it would be advisable for this to be done before or after the proposed meeting, but I would be glad to look into that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that positions are hardening in various parts of the country does not the Prime Minister think it would be advisable for parliament itself to give some leadership to these public discussions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.



APPLICATION TO STAFF OF BILINGUAL BONUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since this government or parliament has approved a bonus of 7 per cent for bilingual civil servants and many civil servants have complained to me that they have not received this 7 per cent bonus, is the Prime Minister in a position to tell us when the bilingual employees of the federal parliament will receive this 7 per cent bonus?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into this matter and discuss it with the President of Treasury Board. I believe, though, this is rather a

matter within the jurisdiction of the Speaker.
I shall be glad to talk with Your Honour about it also.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.
Normally, does this legislation cover parliament employees?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think the question is in order.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Labour. While expressing pleasure at the improved situation in the St. Lawrence ports, I would ask the minister whether, with this improvement, he can report on the possibility of a rapid removal of the 25 per cent surcharge on freight rates through those ports.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry I cannot give an encouraging reply to the hon. member. I am happy to inform the house, however, at least those members who do not know it, that productivity on the Montreal docks yesterday afternoon reached the level which obtained before the Picard report was made. However, there are proceedings pending in the courts. An appeal has been taken against the interim injunction issued on Monday, and until the litigation is over it would be impossible to take any effective action, much as I might like to, along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Minister of National Revenue expressing the view of the government when he said in Montreal last night that he favoured the establishment of a board of revenue commissioners to administer all federal taxes? If so, when does the government expect to establish such a board?
November 29, 1967


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister himself will be glad to reply to this question.	'


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edgar John Benson: -I was simply expressing my own opinion.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if it is in order for the minister to reply. The hon. member asked the question correctly. He can only refer to speeches made by ministers outside the house to ask if they represent government policy.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have the right to ask the Prime Minister if the minister was expressing the view of the government. I have asked that, and I would appreciate an expression by the Prime Minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister indicate whether he is now in a position to inform the house of his decision on referring the special study on transportation in the Atlantic provinces to the committee on transportation and communications? If not, can he say when we might expect a decision in this regard?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of Transport):: Not today, Mr. Speaker, but the matter has been under very active consideration since my hon. friend raised the question and followed it up later with a letter to me.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. R. Sherman (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the current
Inquiries of the Ministry dispute over the bilateral air agreement between The Netherlands and Canada. If the Department of Transport is reluctant to open up the Toronto market to K.L.M., the national Dutch air line, would the minister consider recommending that landing rights be made available to K.L.M. at Winnipeg and other regional airports in Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a policy question sufficiently important and complex that it would not be appropriate to discuss it during the question period.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, could the minister assure the house that the question I have asked, and the ramifications of such a question, are under consideration by his department?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to offend my hon. friend in any way, nor my good friends in Winnipeg, but I have no information from the Dutch government that they would consider Winnipeg as an alternative to Toronto. I will be glad to pose this question to them, but with deference to that city I think it is the great queen city of Ontario, which I have the honour to represent in this house, where they are most interested in obtaining landing rights at the present time.



FREIGHT RATES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has he or the Minister of Agriculture done anything to assist in bringing together the railroads and the men who ship livestock to eastern Canada, in order to bring about a more realistic freight rate than the one which prevailed last summer and fall?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If the answer is yes, could the minister inform the house what action is being taken and when we can expect a reduced rate?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be glad to refer that question to the railroads, Mr. Speaker.

November 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT



VANCOUVER-EMPLOYMENT OF ONLY RIGHT HANDED TEMPORARY HELP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a most urgent question of the Postmaster General, but in view of the fact that apparently he has not recovered from last night may I direct my urgent question to whoever is the acting postmaster general. Can the house have an explanation as to why, on the call for temporary help with the Christmas post office expanded business in Vancouver, only right handed persons need apply as sorters? Have left handed people no rights in this country?
Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of
State): I am, as I am sure every member of this house is, absolutely shocked at this kind of discrimination against those of the left. I will be happy to take it up with my hon. friend the Postmaster General.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
could I direct this question to the Registrar General because of his interest in the proposed department of corporate and consumer affairs. I should like to ask him whether it is his intention to review the proposed increase in dentists' fees and make an appropriate report to the house about it, after determining whether there has been a concomitant increase in productivity as well.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask him whether the government will keep the centennial flame on parliament hill burning after the end of the year as a symbol of Canadian unity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This does not appear to me to be an extremely urgent matter.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Hellyer.l
fTranslation]



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister?
After the recent session of the Estates General of Quebec and French Canada, can the Prime Minister tell the house whether the observers sent by his party have reported to him about the resolutions agreed to?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that the question is acceptable.


Maurice Allard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Why is such an important question not acceptable?


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Precedents in this house have always shown, on many occasions over the last several years, that it is permissible to ask the Prime Minister if he has received a report. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) did not go any further. He only asked if the observers had submitted a report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The report requested must be related to a subject coming under the administrative responsibility of the government.
I do not think that the Quebec Estates General come under the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Postmaster General?
I know that the Postmaster General attended as an observer the sittings of the Estates General over the week-end and did so magnificently. He even acted as a referee in a clash between-


Mr. Speaker:: Could the hon. member put his question?


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, 1 said that he had been a good observer and I should like to know from the minister if the conclusions of this meeting will lead him to recommend to the cabinet the creation at the earliest possible time of a parliamentary committee for the purpose of considering all
November 29, 1967

the problems of French Canadians in Quebec and outside?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is aware that be can question a minister only as concerns his administrative responsibilities.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister advise the house when he expects to make the long promised and long awaited statement in respect of what the government plans to do by way of measures to induce greater productivity in this country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have made many speeches on this subject and have made many statements in the house. I shall be very glad to get together a collection of them to give my hon. friend so he can entertain himself.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest with respect that what the hon. member is asking now is for a very general statement, which should normally be made by the minister on
motions.


George Harris Hees: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he will take the first opportunity on motions. I have read every speech he has made-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -and he has yet to make any suggestion about-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the time which consideration of such legislation is bound to take, will the Prime Minister
Inquiries of the Ministry inform the house whether legislation regarding election expenses flowing from the committee report on this subject is being or has been prepared, and when the house may expect such a bill to be introduced?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know how important this bill will be and I wish it could be introduced this session. However, I think it will have to be introduced next session, at which time I hope it will get through without undue delay, giving us lots of time to have it in effect before the next election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the answer he has just given means that the report of the committee on election expenses is not going to be referred to the house committee during this session, as was promised in the speech from the throne?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a different question, and I hope that can be done. My hon. friend asked me a question about a bill based on the report.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his capacity as house leader. Will the minister arrange to have some matter referred to the committee on defence so it can be organized? I ask this in view of the answers to questions by the minister to the effect that a joint meeting of the committees on national defence and external affairs may be undertaken.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to discuss this suggestion with the Minister of National Defence.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) asked if we could find some

November 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry employment for the persons laid off by the Alberta Trailer Company, of Calgary.
This company, Mr. Speaker, which usually employs 800 persons has laid off 175. We were in a position to find some employment for them in Fort McLeod, in Claresholm and also in Wetaskiwin.
Unfortunately, I do not have any specific figures at the present time, but as soon as I receive a complete report, I will advise the hon. member.



REPORTED APPROVAL OF PIPE LINE INTO CHICAGO AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it is obviously important. In light of the imminent announcement by the United States federal power commission approving the interprovincial pipe line into the Chicago area, can the minister indicate the volume of oil expected to be dropped off in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In view of the fact that the hon. member is asking for technical or statistical information I would not think this is the type of question which can be asked now.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has he received from the Soviet union or any other country a request for another international conference on the law of the sea, in order to reach agreement on territorial seas and fishing limits?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions with particular countries about a conference on matters relating to the law of the sea including conservation of fishery resources. I cannot say we have as yet received a request along the lines my hon. friend suggests.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of that answer, is the minister in a position to inform the house whether Canada would agree to such a
[Mr. Marchand.l
request, and will pursue the idea of holding such a conference?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is hypothetical.


Mr. T. S. Barneli (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises from the fact that some straight base lines have been proclaimed on the Atlantic coast. I should like to ask the minister whether, in the interests of promoting national unity, this will be extended to the Pacific coast soon, shortly or in due course?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: I will give careful consideration to that thoughtful question.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROVISION OF EMPLOYMENT FOR HERRING FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question related to the question just asked, which I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Have representations been received from fishermen on the Pacific coast urging the government to do what it can to find new employment for the herring fishermen who have been displaced by the curtailment of their operation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While I realize that this may be an urgent matter, the hon. member may not ask only whether a communication has been received.


Barry Mather: Let me rephrase my question. What action is the government taking to meet the serious unemployment situation facing herring fishermen in British Columbia?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, during a recent visit to the west coast I met the vice president and other members of the executive of the fishermens' union concerned with this matter. They made representations, several of which seemed to have some merit, to the effect that at least some of the herring fishermen might be engaged in fishery research work on the west coast. Pursuant to the assurance I gave them at the time, I have discussed this with my colleague the Minister of Fisheries. In turn this has been taken up with his deputy minister, who has had broad research experience in this field on the west coast. I am awaiting with interest further word from them.
November 29, 1967



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with the fund accumulated by the government from refundable corporation taxes. Have any refunds been made in this regard, and does the minister intend to make refunds this year to the extent promised in the June budget speech?


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



LOANS BY BANKS UNDER FARM IMPROVEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is he contemplating special action to get the Farm Improvement Loans Act operating effectively?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the Farm Improvement Loans Act is operating quite effectively, although I have no doubt I will in due course be saying something about necessary revisions to the act in order to bring it more into line with present conditions.


Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's answer I would ask him if he is aware of the situation with regard to farm improvement bank loans; and has he tried to obtain such a loan?



MANPOWER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the statement by the chairman of the board of education in Toronto during the weekend that the number of trainees in Toronto has dropped from 11,800 to 3,800, and the minister's undertaking that the program is only temporary, is the minister in a position to revise this program so the citizens of the city of Toronto may get a better deal in respect of retraining?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question was asked previously, I think yesterday particularly.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bud Germa (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his recent announcement of an investigation into the increase in the price of copper by Noranda and Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, will he also consider putting the International Nickel Company in the same category, as it has also announced an increase?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is now making an observation.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that there are now very few government items on the order paper, after the good progress we made last night, will the minister revise his answer of two days ago about unemployment insurance and bring that legislation before the house in this session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker, because I am confident that the list of priority items will be refreshed and extended considerably tonight.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I direct what I think is a very important question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the close relationship between the governments of Canada and the United States as regards NATO and NORAD, can the minister give the house any information in his possession as to possible policy changes in view of the reported resignation of the secretary of defence of the United States?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.

November 29, 1967
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. When does the minister expect to be in a position to make the statement which he first promised me on September 27, and on several occasions since, regarding what the government plans to do to ease the impact on producers who are adversely affected by the Kennedy round tariff reductions?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: My answer is the same as last time, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Could I ask the minister a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this mean that he will continue to say "soon", "soon", "soon" every two or three weeks, as the other members of the government so often do?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: This is the old arrogance.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry. I ask, what is the present status of tenders for the new destroyer escorts? We were promised them this fall, and we are now getting dangerously close to Christmas.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not quite hear the question.


J. Michael Forrestall: No wonder; you weren't listening. That is your fault.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: I stood here and waited for the minister's attention, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: When are we going to get our boats?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code -Mr. Pennell-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of the whole on Bill No. C-168, to amend the Criminal Code. When the house rose on Thursday, November 23, clause 2 of the bill was under consideration. Shall clause 2 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
On clause 2-Approval by governor in council of release after commutation of sentence.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I was asking some questions of the Solicitor General on November 23 when ten o'clock arrived and we were discussing clause 2 of this bill. I stated, as hon. members will find in Hansard, that I still had some questions I wished to ask on clause 2. Clause 2 reads as follows:
Subsection (3) of section 656 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
" (3) Notwithstanding any other law or authority, a person in respect of whom a sentence of death has been commuted to imprisonment for life or a term of imprisonment or a person upon whom a sentence of imprisonment for life has been imposed as a minimum punishment, shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the governor in council."
My first question to the Solicitor General is this. The clause reads, "a person in respect of whom a sentence of death has been commuted to ... a term of imprisonment," and so on, evidently meaning less than life imprisonment. How many commutations have there been to less than life imprisonment in the case of convicted murderers sentenced to be hanged?


Mr. Pennell:: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there have been no cases in which the person convicted of murder has had his sentence commuted to less than life imprisonment. However, my officials will be with me in a few moments and I hope then to be in a position to confirm this answer.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am interested in this question for the simple reason that when the Queen commuted the execution order against Lepine in Manitoba in the 1870's it was commuted to a term of two years plus the loss of
November 29, 1967

civil rights. Inasmuch as we have been advised that the cabinet itself pass on all paroles for people who have had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment after ten years in prison, I was wondering whether there were any convicted murderers who had been given commuted sentences of less than ten years. The problem then arises, when would they be referred to the cabinet for decision on whether parole should be granted. We have the Lepine case as a precedent. I ask that question in all sincerity.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by the officials that within the memory of persons working in the department now there has never been a case where a sentence of death has been commuted to less than life imprisonment.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am quite interested in this question, in view of the fact that the cabinet has been paroling convicted murderers after they have served a life sentence of eight years, ten months and one day, based on the figures produced in the House of Commons by the Solicitor General himself. Why do they have these words in the proposed bill, "or a term of imprisonment," not specifically life imprisonment? Are they now going to impose terms of imprisonment of less than ten years which would equal the eight years, ten months and one day of life sentences in the past 13 cases? Why is that phrase "or a term of imprisonment" put in this bill if there is no recollection of a convicted murderer having had his sentence commuted to less than a term of life imprisonment?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The proposed clause 2 is drafted to meet the conditions set out in section 656 of the Criminal Code wherein it states:
The governor in council may commute a sentence of death to imprisonment in the penitentiary for life, or for any term of years not less than two years, or to imprisonment in a prison other than a penitentiary for a period of less than two years.
I also wish to make it clear that I am not disputing the hon. member's statement that there have been cases where by commutation the sentence has been reduced to less than life. All I am saying is that my officials are not aware of any such case since they have been serving with the government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am indebted to the Solicitor General for having read the section of the law. It points out that the governor in council may commute a sentence 27053-306
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence to a period of not less than two years in penitentiary, which includes anything from a little more than two years upwards to ten years. The other day the Solicitor General advised us that an order in council had been passed to the effect that the cabinet could not consider paroling a convicted man under sentence of life imprisonment until he had served at least ten years of his life sentence. If a man sentenced to life imprisonment must serve ten years of his life sentence, is there no possibility of parole before the expiration of his term for the man who has been committed to a term of not less than two years nor more than ten, which is much less than life imprisonment? When does the cabinet consider the question of parole for him? If his commuted sentence is say eight years, does he serve the full eight years because the cabinet, we are told, is not to consider this matter until he has served ten years?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I would think it would be highly unlikely that the governor in council, having passed an order in council setting a minimum of ten years as the period to be served before a person becomes eligible for parole after receiving a capital sentence, would commute to less than ten years. It is not likely they would go contrary to the order in council passed in 1964.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I may say I have seen the cabinet reverse itself in this very house in less than four hours. My only reply to the Solicitor General's statement is that it confirms his statement that this is a poorly drawn bill.
I should like to ask another question in connection with clause 2. We are told he shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the governor in council. In answer to a question the other day the Solicitor General said such a case could not be referred to the governor in council until the ten years had been served. We who live in the province of Ontario and have children are very well aware of the fact a driver's licence can be issued to a young person at the age of 16. However, we have a regulation in the province of Ontario to the effect that when a child turns 15 years and 6 months he may be given a learner's permit. The idea is that during the six months between 15 years and 6 months and 16 years of age the child will be able to learn to drive a car on the public highways so that when he turns 16 years of age he will be able to get a driver's
4848	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence licence. Everyone knows what a world that opens up to the young.
I should like to ask the Solicitor General this question. In view of the fact that anyone who is serving life imprisonment for murder may not be paroled until he has served ten years, will the cabinet demand that he serve ten years in full before the parole board considers hope of parole and then refer the matter to the cabinet for final decision or will the parole board be given instructions that after eight years, ten months and one day they had better start considering parole for this man who has been sentenced to life imprisonment? If they decide that he should be given parole, can he be sprung by the cabinet at the end of the tenth year of his sentence, rather than have the poor fellow languish in jail after having completed ten years and then have the parole board consider the matter and then refer it to the cabinet? Under circumstances such as those, the poor devil might be in prison as long as 12 years because it may take the parole board and the cabinet two years to come to a decision to spring him. Will there be a provision such as exists in Ontario for young drivers which will enable the matter to be settled before the ten years are up so that the man can be sprung by the cabinet at the end of the tenth year or will he have to serve his full ten years before the matter of parole can be considered?
The other day I mentioned to the minister of immigration that we have a highly moral society. We keep European thieves out of this country so they will not be a blemish on our moral picture, but we parole convicted Canadian murderers amongst the people so that we can not only rehabilitate them but perhaps they will rehabilitate us. The question is, when will the parole board start considering the question of parole for this man, before the ten years are up so he will not have to serve one extra day beyond ten years, or will the board start considering the matter at the end of ten years imprisonment?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, the National Parole Board is an autonomous body. This government, and I am satisfied all other governments, have scrupulously respected the integrity of the board. No matter of parole is brought to the attention of the governor in council until the parole board takes the initiative. If the parole board reaches the conclusion that the case is not one for parole, the governor in council hears nothing of it. If they feel favourably inclined toward the

DEBATES	November 29, 1967
case, then it is forwarded to the office of the Solictior General who in turn brings it before his colleagues in cabinet.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I have just one more question on clause 2. We are told this person shall not be released during his life or such term, as the case may be, without the prior approval of the governor in council. Is this a threat or a promise? Is it a promise that he will be sprung at the end of ten years or is it a threat that the cabinet, in all seriousness, in the certain way in which they consider every problem of the day, will dwell on the problem of parole for months and months so that he will have to fear inactivity on the part of the cabinet in connection with something which he hopes from this cabinet which has let people out after eight years, ten months and one day? Again I ask, does that phrase, "without prior approval of the governor in council", hold out a hope, a promise or a threat for the prisoner?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it would be helpful if I pointed out that in non-capital cases the question of parole is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board and does not come to the governor in council. It is only in capital cases where the sentence has been commuted that the matter is referred to the cabinet. This new clause will make it necessary for all cases, both capital and non-capital, to be referred, and parole shall not be granted unless there is approval by the governor in council in addition to the approval of the National Parole Board.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I just want to express a thought or two about the intention of the clause before us. I say at once that I do not know what the percentage figure is in connection with rehabilitation. In other words, I cannot say how many individuals who, having been convicted of a crime and sentenced, have successfully undergone rehabilitation. We talk in terms of 70 per cent or 80 per cent being recidivists, so presumably 20 per cent or 30 per cent represents the degree of success. These figures include criminals generally and not particularly those people who may have committed capital or non-capital murder.
I am quite sure that if during the time our penal system has been in existence we had followed the philosophy advocated by the hon. member for York-Humber we would undoubtedly be in a deficit position with respect to rehabilitation. I do not care to
November 29, 1967


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 3-Transitional.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I should like the Solicitor General to tell the committee why paragraph (a) of clause 3, subclause 1, was included in the bill. If I understand paragraph (a) correctly, it seems that cases of alleged murder already before the courts or cases in which proceedings have been commenced before, this act comes into force are to be proceeded with as if the law is that which existed before this bill passed. This would mean that if in cases already commenced but which will not actually come to trial for a few months the accused is found guilty of capital murder, the judge is called upon to sentence the accused to death.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It strikes me as rather strange that we would call upon our courts to pass such sentences, parliament having made the decision that it does not favour the application of capital punishment except in two restricted cases. I find it hard to believe that the cabinet would countenance a death sentence when parliament has decided against capital punishment. Where a death sentence has been passed I should think that commutation would be almost automatic. It it not a farce, then, to ask judges, juries and courts to handle capital cases in the next few months as though the law had not been changed? Since parliament has made its decision about capital punishment and since in all likelihood the cabinet will commute any death sentence, will it not be a bit of a farce for a judge to put on his black gloves and so on and sentence a man to death at any time during the next two or three months?
I think that the Solicitor General and I are on the same wavelength about what ought to be done. I want to know why this provision is to continue in force. It seems to me that clause 3(3)(a) ought to be eliminated and clause 3 ought to be redrafted. I am not proposing an amendment. I am merely saying that this provision ought not to be in this bill.
(Mr. Howard.]


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, while the
Solicitor General is thinking of the answer to my hon. friend's question it might be appropriate for me to add a word to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said.
It seems to me, in the situation he has drawn to our attention, that our judges, juries and courts will be placed in a false position so far as the law is concerned. The hon. member for Bow River in general terms, when speaking on an earlier amendment, spoke about the mockery of the administration of justice. Parliament has changed the law. For parliament, through the provisions of clause 3(l)(a), to call on a judge to pronounce a solemn sentence of death, in the light of the change in the law, is to make a mockery of the administration of justice and to bring it into disrepute. The death penalty is not the appropriate penalty in such circumstances.
With the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I urge the Solicitor General to reconsider this matter. What is the administrative difficulty of making the new law applicable at a certain date? The new legislation ought to apply to all capital murder trials that take place after that date. We ought not to tolerate the present situation where charges may have been laid and where the accused may be tried with the old law still being applicable.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a few words about subclause (3). I should appreciate it if the minister would indicate to the house and to all Canadians the meaning of commutation of the death penalty.
The legislation provides in general that, in the case of an individual sentenced to life imprisonment, the governor in council may reduce the term of imprisonment, further to a report to this effect from the National Parole Board.
The public-as I came to realize during the week-ends I spent in my riding-was asking this very question. They wanted to know, in the case of an individual sentenced to life imprisonment, what standards and criteria the minister will use to commute his sentence.
Will the minister have to rely solely on the reports of the parole board or will he try to set up another organization which would review the recommendations submitted by the board to the cabinet?
I know that the parole board performs a tremendous task. Its members are only
November 29, 1567	COMMONS
human and make mistakes sometimes, but I feel, when the life sentence of a dangerous criminal is to be reduced by ten or fifteen years, that the minister should take every precaution to ensure that its decision is not detrimental to society in general.
I should like to know whether the minister will maintain the National Parole Board as it now stands and whether he will accept the recommendations of the board on the commutation of the sentence of someone who is sentenced to life imprisonment.
I should also like to know whether the minister intends to alter the organization of the National Parole Board or if he will set up another body to reassure the public that the recommendations of the board have been seriously considered in depth, because I know the minister cannot go into all the details when he is asked for parole. He must rely on the parole board and it is impossible, even inhuman, to ask the minister to consider all the details in order to make an objective recommendation to the cabinet.
I should also like to know whether the minister intends to check in detail and in depth the recommendations of the National parole board and what criteria he will use as a basis for his recommendations to the cabinet for a commutation of sentence for someone sentenced to life imprisonment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: May I deal first with the question raised by the hon. member for Charlevoix. I had some difficulty in following his remarks through the translation system, but the matter of commutation falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the governor in council and does not fall within the powers of the National Parole Board. These powers will remain unchanged so far as commutation is concerned. I shall propose some changes to the Parole Act in the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code when that bill is presented. That, I hope, will be some time during this session. I am not at liberty to go into details with respect to the proposed amendments. Basically the powers of the National Parole Board remain unchanged notwithstanding the proposed amendments.
Coming now to the question raised by the hon. members for Greenwood and Winnipeg North Centre, I must compliment them for seizing quickly on an apparent inconsistency in the bill. When I saw that clause in print for the first time I thought it would entail problems. Clause 5 and clause 3 are complementary. We hope that by taking action under clause 5 when this bill becomes law it
DEBATES	4851
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence will not be necessary to take action under clause 3. Before the bill is proclaimed we hope to notify all appropriate authorities across the country so that they do not commence trials until the legislation has been brought into force. Should it be that a trial is under way, it is possible that the trial could be pending when we proclaim the legislation. In that case it is proposed that the trial continue as if this legislation had not come into force. The rules of evidence and the conduct of the trial are not changed by the proposals in this bill. Only the sentence is affected, and in the event of the death sentence being passed it would be necessary for the governor in council to commute it. We feel this is not likely to occur, but the possibility does exist.
[DOT] 13:50 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: May I ask the Solicitor General what interpretation he places on the word "proceedings"? From the way he spoke it sounded as though he thought "proceedings" was the same as "trial". I had thought that proceedings might be initiated by the laying of an information or by indictment at some time well ante-dating the trial and that the effect of subclause 3 would be that if proceedings were initiated today, for example, by the laying of a charge or the preferring of an indictment, then the old law would apply to the trial even though the trial might not take place until two or three months hence. This is the problem we foresee. Perhaps it could be dealt with by changing the word "proceedings" to "trial".


Mr. Churchill:: I wonder whether the minister will give some thought to this suggestion. I am speaking now of clause 3 (1) and I suggest we strike out everything after the word "Act" in line 5 down to line 21, put the word "and" in place of the word "where" and leave the rest of it in. We would then be left with what I think the minister would like to see. He wants to deal with proceedings which have begun prior to the coming into force of this legislation and then with proceedings which commence after the coming into force of this measure. If my suggestion is adopted the operative lines would be from line 22 to line 30 and the punishment would then be in accordance with this bill.
You deal with proceedings started in advance of this bill, proceedings started after the legislation has come into force, and then you determine what punishment shall be imposed as though the crime had been committed after the coming into force of the act.
November 29, 1967
4852	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence You get away from all this uncertainty. If there is some delay in getting this measure through the house or through the other place you may run into difficulties. But could the bill not be clarified by striking out the lines to which I have referred?


Mr. Nugent:: I am not sure I followed my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I was very clear. My hon.
friend should pay more attention.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I hope my hon. friend will put forward an amendment for our consideration. As I see it, this is the difficulty in which we find ourselves as a result of the present wording of the bill. Suppose a man was accused of murder last April and the process of his trial is subject to a great many delays. His case would be subject to the provisions of the new act. On the other hand, a man accused of an offence on the same date whose trial had been expedited would be dealt with under the old law. I find it hard to persuade myself that punishment should depend upon the degree of expedition with which the courts have acted. Some murder trials are completed within a year. Others drag on for three or four years after the date upon which proceedings were first begun. Perhaps the criterion should be the date upon which the crime was committed. I cannot agree that the provisions of clause 5 make it practicable for the crown to cure this trouble arising from delayed proceedings. I think it will be almost impossible for the courts to examine past proceedings and make sure there is an equitable rule maintained in the interest of those who are now being tried.


Lawrence T. Pennell: On the point raised by the hon. member for Greenwood and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I should like to point out that subclause 3 of clause 3 refers to proceedings commenced upon the preferment of an indictment pursuant to part XVII of the Criminal Code. I am advised that in this circumstance the preliminary hearing would have ben concluded and that the present bill would not affect the preliminary hearing proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Before the Solicitor General goes cn to another point may I put a direct question to him? Are there any cases now at the stage where clause 3(1) (a) would apply, were the trial would have to be carried on under the old law and where the judge would pronounce sentence of death upon the prisoner, if found guilty, only to have that sentence automatically commuted?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Unfortunately I am unable to give a satisfactory answer to that question. I do not know how many trials are under way at the present moment. But I can assure this chamber that should the bill carry and be sent to the other place we shall be watching proceedings very closely and alerting provincial attorneys general so as to avoid a situation where this act would be proclaimed in the middle of trial proceedings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the clear intention of the Solicitor General, namely, that the attorneys general are to be advised, why should we not take care of this in the law? Why have a law which says something different from the clear intention of the government? As I read it the law is so worded as to say that it is possible for judges to pronounce sentence of death on people convicted of a crime for which parliament is now saying the sentence should be life imprisonment.
One other question. Is there any intention of making the date upon which the act comes into force retroactive? Does it have to be a date later than the date upon which the bill is passed?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sure the house gave this particular point grave consideration, but notwithstanding all the precautions we take we cannot forecast the speed with which legislation moves through this chamber and through the other chamber. It is possible that if a trial were under way the responsible authorities might not wish to delay it. A trial may have reached its last moments. The jury might be out over midnight, and if the bill were proclaimed to come into effect on a certain day we might get into the situation that by the time the jury had returned its verdict the act would have come into effect. It is suggested that it is not advisable to change the ground rules of a trial once it is under way. It is for that reason that we propose coupling clause 3 with clause 5, hoping that this will avoid such an unusual situation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister go at least as far as to say that it is the intention that as from now on no trial will start on the basis of the old law?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Our hope is that no trial will be commenced at a time when we expect the new act, if passed, to be proclaimed as being in force. I cannot engage in forecasting the political fortunes of this bill in another chamber, but of course I am very hopeful. I
November 29, 1967
COMMONS DEBATES	4853
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence
cannot say to the various attorneys general: You should not embark on trials. The best I can do is to keep them advised of the progress of this bill so that they may take responsible action with regard to the holding of trials of this nature.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am still a little puzzled why the crown wants to complicate unduly the method by which the new rule will be brought into force. I can see that there will be lots of consultation with the various attorneys general throughout the country, and knowing how long some trials can be delayed I am satisfied in my own mind that a satisfactory method can be worked out by them. Would the Solicitor General tell us what is wrong with fixing an arbitrary date, based on the day that the bill comes into effect, rather than going through a cumbersome system that could be unworkable and at the very least difficult to manage? The crown can arbitrarily fix a date such as the date the house gave approval to the principle of the bill, and proceedings after that can then take their normal course, no matter how long. Would the Solicitor General be kind enough to deal with that problem?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I feel I ought to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. If I followed the hon. member correctly-if I did not, it was my fault because I was trying to speak with my officials-his suggestion was that we should conduct a trial according to the law in force at the time an offence was committed, and it seems to me that by doing so we would be coming to the same proposition as now proposed under clause 3. It would mean that if a capital offence were committed today and the person were convicted he would be sentenced to death. This is the same result as we would be reaching under clause 3.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I did not say on a date fixed by proclamation. If the date were set as November 1 then the punishment for the offence of capital murder after that date, no matter when the trial may be held, would be life imprisonment, but this bill would have no effect on any offence committed before that date, no matter when the trial may be held.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I want to try once more to make my point to the Solicitor General. I do not think that what he said meets it. As I see it, the problem is not so much the case where a trial has actually
commenced. I can understand that if the bill were likely to come into force it might well be possible to arrange to have a trial postponed until it actually does come into force, but I still ask the Solicitor General to consider the case where proceedings have commenced already by the preferring of an indictment.
The Solicitor General will be more familiar with these matters than I am. I understand it is possible to prefer an indictment after a preliminary inquiry and then have the trial postponed for one reason or another for a matter of months, certainly for a matter of weeks. If this legislation remains as it is now drafted, then although the act may be proclaimed the trial must take place, as I understand it, under the old dispensation. I suggest that instead of saying, "where proceedings in respect of an offence" the clause should state, "Where a trial in respect of an offence was commenced". A comparable amendment would then have to be made in subclause 2, and possibly subclause 3 would have to be struck out.
This would make it clear that once the act came into effect any case would have to be tried under the new dispensation, the new definition of capital punishment, and perhaps a new indictment would have to be prepared. However, that would not tax the abilities of our crown attorneys unduly and it would remove the anomaly of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has spoken. I suggest it would be derogatory to the administration of justice to ask a jury, after this bill has come into effect, to proceed in accordance with a law that is no longer in effect and have the sentence of death imposed with all the macabre details that go with it, knowing full well that that is not the law of Canada as determined by parliament.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I was remaining in my seat feeling that possibly the Solicitor General was going to make some comments in answer to the hon. member for Greenwood, but as he has not risen I would like to speak on clause 3 of the bill and to refer to the points raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Greenwood.
e (4:10 p.m.)
I ask hon. members not to overlook the fact that this bill was introduced into the house on October 19, 1967, when it was given first reading, and that it was given second reading on November 9. As I explained on
November 29, 1967
4854	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence second reading of the bill, many of us were amazed at the action of the cabinet in bringing it forward since this parliament of Canada in April, 1966, had declared in unmistakable terms that it wished capital punishment retained in this country. We are relying on the word of the Prime Minister of Canada that this parliament would be asked to declare itself once and for all on this question. This parliament declared itself once and for all on the question and stated that capital punishment should be retained. This was done in April, 1966. What happened? The cabinet had no intention of carrying out the will of parliament. It goes on commuting death sentences to life imprisonment and starts to parole persons with commuted sentences after eight years, ten months and one day.
There is no doubt that the cabinet enjoyed their position on the throne of mercy when they were commuting every death sentence imposed since they came to office in April, 1963. True enough, Shakespeare wrote that mercy "becomes the throned monarch better than his crown", that "it is an attribute to God himself; and earthly power doth then show likest God's when mercy seasons justice."
There can be no member of the cabinet but what must have enjoyed the sensation of having an attribute to God himself when he was extending mercy over and above the law of the land which had been endorsed by a free vote-and I said free vote-of the parliament of Canada in April, 1966. But it does seem to me that members of the cabinet must have been reading more of Shakespeare than "The Merchant of Venice" during the four and a half years they have been in office.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I do not think he should be making observations in general terms about the subject of the bill. He should be confining his remarks to the transitional aspects of this bill.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I am sure that if you and the other members of the house will pay attention to my remarks you will find that I am referring to clause 3 of the bill, because I intend to get down to clause 3
(1)	(b) which reads, "Where a new trial of a person for the offence has been ordered". The new trial to which I will refer and up to which I am leading is the new trial ordered for Messrs. Schirm and Guenette, separatists in the province of Quebec. I happen to be


leading up to that point and I will be commenting in a moment or two on the situation where a new trial of a person for an offence has been ordered as referred to in clause 3(1) (b).
The cabinet must have been finding that the attribute to God was embarrassing to them when they were extending mercy to the murderers of prison guards, the murderers of policemen, the murderers of children and the murderers of women, because Shakespeare wrote eloquently in "Timon of Athens", "It is necessary that he should die; nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy". I do wish that when people are talking about mercy being an attribute to God himself they would also bear in mind that Shakespeare wrote that nothing emboldens sin so much as mercy.
Mr. Chairman and members of the House of Commons, I do not like this bill. I have not hesitated to express my dislike. But I must say in no uncertain terms that I consider clause 3 (1) (b) to be the most nefarious part of the entire bill. Far be it from me to make any charges; I am not a lawyer. But I do not mind borrowing nice easy-sounding phrases when I find lawyers using them. I wish to borrow a phrase from the Solicitor General when he was speaking on second reading of this bill. I should like to submit that the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the members of the cabinet in the matters which I intend to draw to the attention of the committee.
Clause 3(l)(b)-and I am confining myself to this clause-refers to where a new trial has been ordered. Let me say that in the case of Schirm and Guenette a new trial was ordered on October 24, 1967. I intend to refer to this in some detail.
In speaking on this bill in the past-and I do not hesitate to refer to it a second time-I made much of the celebrated case of Lepine during the Red River occurrences in 1870. I made the statement at that time that the most despicable chapter in the history of the Mackenzie government, the Liberal government of this country from 1873 to 1878, was that relating to the case of Lepine whose sentence of death was commuted by Queen Victoria. I said it was-and it is-a despicable chapter not only in the history of the Mackenzie administration but also in the administration of law in Canada. I stated that the Dufferin-Carnarvon correspondence of 1874 to 1878 shows conclusively the lack of backbone in the Mackenzie cabinet, a
November 29, 1967	COMMONS
craven cabinet if ever there was one, which refused to allow the law to be carried out.
A jury consisting of English speaking Canadians, French speaking Canadians, halfbreeds and Metis had found Lepine guilty of the murder of Scott. These papers tell an unfortunate story, I can assure you; I have made reference to it before. The Governor General, Lord Dufferin, advised the officials in England, particularly the secretary of the colonial office to whom he was responsible, that the cabinet in Canada was in a very embarrassing and vexed position. The cabinet of Mackenzie was sustained in the House of Commons of Canada by a heavy vote from Quebec and a heavy vote from Ontario. Lepine had been found guilty of the murder of Thomas Scott who came from Ontario and he was sentenced to death. If Mackenzie allowed the sentence of death to be carried out it was his impression and that of the hon. Edward Blake that Quebec would turn against the Mackenzie administration and that if the sentence was commuted by Mackenzie Ontario would turn against the Mackenzie-Blake administration.
"How to get off the hook" was the expression I used the other day. I repeat it today. It was decided in informal conversations with the Governor General to persuade the Queen to commute the death sentence just as though Ottawa knew nothing about it. To carry on the sham, when the word came through that the sentence of death on Lepine had been commuted to two years' imprisonment plus the loss of his civil rights, the Mackenzie cabinet was overjoyed because they passed the word around-it is in the books here- that Ontario accepted the clemency of the Queen without question because of the high regard in which the Queen was held. It was pointed out that if the Mackenzie cabinet had commuted the sentence there would have been anger from one end of Ontario to the other.
May I refer to Hon. Edward Blake. In this correspondence it is pointed out that Blake protested loud and long in Canada, particularly through a paper which he owned, about the interference of the colonial office in the affairs of Canada. Mackenzie, in order to show the people of Canada that the Mackenzie administration did not want the Queen interfering in our affairs, decided to send Blake to Great Britain to protest her interference in an affair which she had been asked to interfere in by informal conversations with Governor General Dufferin. They 27053-307
DEBATES	4855
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence then sent Blake over to England and he is supposed to have protested, although there is no record of it. Later on Blake, who had been prime minister of Ontario at one time and later minister of justice in the House of Commons of Canada, went to Great Britain and was elected to the house there. He fell flat on his face, to use a common term, so far as British politics are concerned. I do not have the slightest doubt that he did. The politicians and statesmen in Britain knew that he was the man who had requested that the Queen commute the sentence of Lepine and then had gone to England to protest the commutation. I do not have any doubt that Blake fell flat on his face in Britain because of the prior knowledge in Britain of his actions as a politician in Canada.
I come now to the case of Schirm and Guenette, these convicted separatists in the province of Quebec. I would like to think that some members might keep track of the dates I mention as I proceed. It was on August 29, 1964 that a man was killed in a gunshop in Montreal as he came up from the basement. Not only was this man shot and killed in his own gunshop but another man in the area was killed accidentally by a police bullet because of the exchange of rifle fire between the raiders and the gunshop employees and police.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Schirm and Guenette were convicted on May 21, 1965, although the robbery and murders took place on Saturday, August 29, 1964. I wish to read some of the history of the Schirm and Guenette case. Following their conviction the case was automatically appealed to the Supreme Court of Quebec on August 24, 1967 and a new trial was ordered. I trust that you will keep track of the dates I mention because I submit that the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the cabinet to disprove that they are not placing on parliament as a whole the responsibility for commuting the sentences of Schirm and Guenette.
The cabinet has always thought it in order to commute the sentences of other murderers but here we have men who, during the course of their trial, claimed they had committed a political offence and should therefore be tried in other than a criminal court of Canada. They even mentioned that they should be tried in an international court because they claimed their offence was a political one and Canada does not have a political court such as they have in countries
COMMONS DEBATES	November 29, 1967
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence like Holland, Belgium and France. Of course, the Canadian law enforcement officers would not listen to such an argument and they were tried in a criminal court for the murder of the vice president of the gunshop.
Let me read to you from the Toronto Star of August 31, 1964 which carried a United Press International and Canadian Press dispatch from Montreal regarding this case. It states:
Anti-terrorist squads of three police forces joined today in a 4,000 man hunt for the missing member of a five-man separatist group after two men were shot dead during an abortive raid Saturday on a firearms store.
Inspector Roland Perran of the Montreal police force said the five raiders had "revolutionary tendencies" but that four persons captured near the site will not be identified until a coroner's inquest is held.
Detectives said they have positive proof the raid was attempted by men with "revolutionary tendencies" but would not pin down with what separatist organization the men were connected.
Some reports said they were members of the A.L.Q. (Armee Liberation Quebecoise) the group which took over the F.L.Q. (Front Liberation de Quebec) smashed after a wave of bombings last summer.
Saturday's deaths bring to three the killings resulting from separatist violence.
A store employee said a bandit pointed the gun at the clerk and announced in French: "We don't want any money-just rifles and ammunition".
We read in the Ottawa Journal of September 4, 1964, about the "revolutionaries". The article from Montreal states in part:
Five lean, shabbily dressed men, described by police as "revolutionaries"-
Then we find a reference to Frangois Schirm, 32, a Hungarian born French army paratrooper. Later the article states:
Following their capture, police described the five as "revolutionaries", but said there was no proof they belonged to known separatist groups.
At a press conference Thursday, Pierre Bourgault, president of Le Rassemblement pour l'Independance Nationale, a separatist party, said only Schirm was an R.I.N. member and that the party could-


David Lewis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I cannot say that I have heard every word the hon. gentleman has spoken because I have been in and out, but it appears to me that the hon. member for York-Humber is discussing a case in respect of which a new trial has been granted and which is now before the courts. The hon. member is making highly prejudicial statements in respect of this case. This matter is now sub judice and ought not to be discussed on the floor of this house at all, certainly not in the terms in which the hon. member is

discussing it. I respectfully suggest to Your Honour that you stop him from carrying on with this bloodthirsty subject.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I have been listening to the remarks of the hon. member for York-Humber and I must admit I have been a little bit puzzled by his observations about an individual case. Hon. members should confine their remarks to the transitional aspects of clause 3 of this bill rather than speak in general terms or about individual cases.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I urge you to rule whether or not the hon. member should deal with any matter of this kind. The matter is in your hands, but I ask you to rule that he cannot discuss this case in respect of which the accused have been granted a new trial, at least certainly not in the terms in which he has been discussing it.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: My references have been taken from the transcripts of evidence in the cases in question. I should like to draw attention to a statement made by the hon. member for Three Rivers who spoke in this house on November 23. This is to be found in Hansard on page 4643. No ruling was made at that time with regard to that member's statement. He said:
I also see cases which might constitute what is generally called political crimes when governments might be concerned over electoral consequences, over the penalties they might mete out to those responsible for political crimes. There might be some even now and the rumour is rampant. Mr. Chairman, I am not inventing anything. It is currently being reputed at least in my province- I do not know whether it is being said in the rest of the country-that if the government is so insistent in having this bill carried, it is because they do not dare allow the death sentences against the two separatists who have been guilty of murder, lest a scandal result along the lines of the (Lepine) affair in the political history of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. The hon. member may refer to a previous debate, but a point of order has been raised by the hon. member for York South. He has pointed out that this case is now before the courts. The hon. member should confine his remarks to clause 3 of this bill rather than to individual cases.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Let me point out that the reference I read is from this very debate, and no one objected to the hon. member for Three Rivers as he continued to point out that-
November 23, 1967


Maurice Rinfret: I think the hon. member should return to clause 3. The point of order of the hon. member for York South is well taken.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: 
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I know the Solicitor General has been considering amendments to the bill. I have an amendment that I hope will simplify and clarify
November 29, 1967
4858	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence matters if the crown sees fit to accept it. It would save all the difficulties I have mentioned in trying to determine when the crown should bring the bill into force.
I believe it is the intention of the crown that this amendment to the act should take effect immediately in respect of all those now undergoing trial and those whose trials are about to commence. If I am right in this supposition, the amendment is fairly simple.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Charlevoix:
That clause 3 be amended by adding after the word "before" in line 4 of subclause 1, the words "or after", by deleting all the words after the word "act" in line 5 of subclause 1 down to the end of the words "this act" in line 25 of subclause 2, and deleting all of subclause 3.
The clause as amended would then read:
3. (1) Where proceedings in respect of an offence that, under the provisions of the Criminal Code existing immediately prior to the coming into force of this act, was punishable by death were commenced before or after the coming into force of this act, the offence shall be dealt with, inquired into, tried and determined, and any punishment in respect of the offence shall be imposed, as if it had been committed after the coming into force of this act irrespective of when it was actually committed.
I submit that this covers the whole situation. If there is any doubt in anyone's mind with respect to trials which may now be in the process, we could add these words: "and irrespective of the state of any trial in process at the time of the coming into force of this act." In my view this would not be necessary. I think this amendment is in line with the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. I had not quite understood what he meant, but surely this is a less cumbersome procedure. It simply says that the provisions of this clause shall apply to all, no matter what is the stage of the proceedings or when they started. Once the act comes into force it applies to every matter that is before the courts and that is to come before the courts. I hope the Solicitor General and his officials will give some consideration to this very uncomplicated method of dealing with the clause.


Maurice Rinfret: For the information of the committee I might read the amendment submitted by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Before you read the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I must say that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Greenwood are attractive. Both hon.


members, I am sure, will agree with me, however, that we can never foresee the skill of counsel, and looking forward I would say it is a rather difficult section to draft.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister know^s whereof he speaks.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I was wondering, therefore, whether the committee would wish to continue with clause 4 and then deal with the remaining clause. If the committee rises at five o'clock I could take these amendments under advisement and if the matter is called tomorrow I will then be in a position to give my views on the proposed amendments.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: May I ask a question with regard to clause 3? Can the Solicitor General tell us what other new trials have been ordered, besides Schirm and Guenette, in the whole of Canada at this time?


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am not aware of any other convictions that have been set aside and new trials ordered. I was tempted to say there is the case of one Booth where a new trial was granted. He was convicted again in the lower court and that matter is now under appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. I am not aware of any other case.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, since I am not allowed to mention names of particular cases, might I be allowed to say that I submit the burden of proof is on the cabinet to show that clause 3 (1) (b) was not inserted for the specific benefit of the only new trial so far ordered in all of Canada.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed by the members of the committee that the proposed amendment be stood and also that clause 3 be stood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
o (4:40 p.m.)
On clause 4-Duration and Expiration of act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, the Solicitor General will not be surprised if I say we are not exactly happy with clause 4. I realize, and I say this quite openly, that what the Solicitor General has brought before parliament is a compromise bill. He has done so in the belief that such a compromise would command the support of the majority of the members of this house. We have already debated, and I will not reopen, our unhappiness with the other compromise, namely, the
November 29, 1987	COMMONS
retention of capital punishment for those found guilty of certain crimes. But we are unhappy also about the way in which the provision for this trial period is drafted in clause 4. I do not want to lay down, in any hard and fast way, that we will not agree to a trial period rather than making the new law permanent. But I say to the committee that even if one accepts the idea of a trial period, I think we have a right to look at the wording that provides for that trial.
As I read the wording of clause 4, it seems to me that we are leaving the country in this position. If five years from now there sits here a parliament that does nothing about this issue,-my colleague from York South says perhaps by inadvertence-then this new act will expire and we will be back with the law on capital punishment which parliament, by a majority, has decided it does not approve. I point out even further that the way this provision is worded, even if five years from now a resolution to extend the provisions of this act were before parliament and the debate on it were stalled, then with the arrival of the day five years from the date this act is proclaimed we are back to the old law. I say to the Solicitor General that I will not ask him to go back on his undertaking that this will be for a trial period. However, I do think that what happens at the end of the trial period should be put in a different way.
One way to have it would be that the law continues unless there is a resolution asking for it to be discontinued. Another way to have it would be that if a motion is made to continue the law and that motion has not yet been resolved, the present act would continue until a decision had been made. Another possibility, of course, would be that a provision might be written into the act giving any ten members the right to put down a motion and require that it be debated. As I say, I should like the Solicitor General to look at this provision rather carefully. I know he has lived with this legislation for a long time, but it seems to me that it is loaded on the side of the old law, on the side of capital punishment coming back. The minister may say to me that the provision should make for equality as between our views and the views of those who disagree with us. But this is not equal. This is loaded, as I say, in favour of those who would like to see the old law come back. All that has to happen is that good men do nothing in 1972 or that the efforts of the so-called good men be frustrated by those
DEBATES	4859
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence who would prevent such a resolution from
coming to a vote.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this matter could be resolved by not having clause 4 in there at all, by allowing the bill to come into effect as though the measure were to be permanent. In that event parliament would still have the right five years from now to amend it by wiping it out. I feel the better way would be to provide that the measure continue in effect until parliament has actually taken a decision one way or the other. In fact, I press that consideration the strongest because it seems to me it is the way that is fair to both sides, to those who want the law changed and to those who do not want the law changed. I suggest that perhaps some words along this line might be added: provided, however, that if parliament has not dealt with any such resolution this act shall continue in force beyond that five year period until parliament has made a decision. I should like the Solicitor General to give his comments on this point.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Gladly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The suggested change, "unless parliament has dealt with it", means that a resolution would have to be brought forward by the government. You might have a government in 1972 as inactive as this government and the resolution might not even be called. It might appear on the order paper but it might not come up for consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: These are points that we have to take into consideration. We have to have what the chairman ascribed to a Conservative member the other day, namely, clairvoyance. My colleague is pointing out to me that one answer might be that if parliament does not act at all it would be because no one wanted it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On the contrary, you can ask this government on many occasions to bring something forward but you get only promises, not action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is the reason for one of the suggestions I had in mind. I found in the Bill of Rights the wording I have in my hand, and such a clause might be inserted in this bill. It could read something like this, and the language is taken from the Bill of Rights: A notice of motion in either house signed by ten members thereof made at any
4860	COMMONS
Amendment Respecting Death Sentence time after four years and six months from the date fixed for proclamation, pursuant to section 5, shall be debated in that house at the first opportunity within ten days after the motion is made. This is one way of making sure that if it comes before parliament, provided there were ten people who wanted it brought before parliament, it would be debated. Then I believe the other provision would have to be there as well, that in that event the expiry of this act five years from now would not take place until parliament had made a decision, either on the motion of the ten private members or on the government's motion.
Frankly, one of the reasons I am not offering any formal amendment is that I think this is the kind of thing that needs to be thought about by the minister, and about which there could be some consultation. It does seem to me we should protect ourselves against a do-nothing situation in 1972, particularly when that do-nothing situation could result in the positive act of reverting to full-scale capital punishment.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I must confess, Mr. Chairman, that the drafting of the section as it now stands was deliberate. I looked at the British precedent and the Lord Chancellor proposed an amendment in terms not dissimilar from the one put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I am sure he knows I have never concealed my views on the subject of capital punishment. It became very clear from the remarks of some hon. members who supported the bill on second reading that they only supported the bill because of the way in which this particular clause had been drafted. I am satisfied in my own mind that a similar reaction would take place if we followed the proposal of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. All I can say is that I believe the clause as drafted represents the greatest common denominator of views acceptable to the house at this time. As I say, the hon. member knows clearly what my views are on the subject of capital punishment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, not only do I know the minister's views but he knows mine, and we think alike on this issue. However, I would ask him whether it is not a fact that the clause as now worded is unfair to the position taken by those of us who would like to see abolition continued. Is it not also a fact that if the wording I suggested were adopted it would not be unfair

DEBATES	November 29, 1967
to the other side? If we provide that a decision has to be taken in 1972-and by that I mean a formal decision, not decision by default-then we are leaving it open to parliament in that year to make the decision. Under the present wording, in the event of there being a do-nothing situation we are making the decision one way now rather than letting it be made then.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something about one of the suggestions offered by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, namely, that a few words be added to make it clear that the provision contained in this bill will remain in effect until a decision is reached by the house on a resolution. Apart from any other consideration, it appeals to me that this would cover the event that parliament might be dissolved and not in existence five years from the date of proclamation. If this happened to be the case I think the minister would agree that the law as now drafted would lapse by default because there would be no mechanism for parliament or anybody else to take action on whether there should be any continuance of the law.
It strikes me that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would not concern the hon. members to whom the Solicitor General just referred, those who had made their position on second reading conditional upon there being a trial period. The amendment would simply mean that the law could not lapse by default. I think this is a point that should be considered in relation to the present wording of this clause.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, as one who has spoken as an abolitionist and would not be prepared to accept the bill if the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre were carried, I would have to argue that the amendment is out of order. Having listened to the debate and knowing the feelings of hon. members and why some of them changed their vote, I can only conclude that the decision to abolish capital punishment was based on there being a trial period which would automatically end after five years.
Any amendment which would in any way allow the trial period to continue by default or would allow the issue to be decided by others would be changing the sum and substance of the principle which we managed to get the majority of the house to support. Personally I would delete the clause, but I
November 29, 19G7

feel the minister is not in a position to do this. The amendment about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is talking is unfair to those who voted to abolish capital punishment for a trial period of five years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that he does not need to raise a point of order because I have not moved the amendment or, indeed, any of my amendments. I have suggested wording that I hope the Solicitor General will consider. May I also say to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that I agree with him that one of the reasons that this legislation is getting through parliament, as we hope it will, is that it is based on a five year trial period. I am not quarrelling with this.
My view of the matter is that if we cannot change the wording I may feel it necessary to vote against clause 4. However, I still feel there is a case to be made for wording the clause so that it would establish a trial basis in a way that is fair to both sides at the end of the five year trial period.
Since the Solicitor General has already agreed to take a look, whether or not he actually comes up with anything, at the suggestions that were made in connection with clause 3, perhaps he would be willing also to take a look overnight at clause 4. He does not need to accept my wording. Having listened to the arguments advanced and having considered the proposition he might come back with a suggestion tomorrow. I am not going to make life uncomfortable for him on this tomorrow, and I do not think I have done this in any case.
Since there are about 30 seconds before five o'clock and we will be going into private members' hour shortly, I wonder whether the Solicitor General would be willing to take clause 4 under review overnight in the same way that he is going to review clause 3.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am prepared to do this, Mr. Chairman, but I openly confess that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has put the case for me. However, I will accede to the suggestion of the hon. member since we have now reached five o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. It being five o'clock shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Proposed Deduction from Income Tax Mr. Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, which clock are you looking at? There seems to be quite a difference between the two.
Progress reported.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is an understanding that the first two private members' motions on the order paper today should stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that notice of motion No. 15 standing in the name of the hon. member for Springfield and motion No. 16 standing in the name of the hon. member for Spadina stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale) moved:: That in the opinion of this house the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be deductible from federal personal income tax.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, at this time when Canadians are involved in a national debate on tax reform and the recommendations of the royal commission on taxation, at a time when the housing shortage and increasing taxes are reaching disturbing levels, I welcome this opportunity, on the eve of the special federal-provincial conference on housing and urban development, to debate my motion which has been on the order paper since May 9. My motion states:
That... the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be deductible from federal personal income tax.
The purpose of my motion is to bring once again to the attention of the government and especially to the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) the great burden of the Canadian taxpayer, who is not only overtaxed, but in some cases doubly taxed.


Mr. McCleave:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Haidasz: It is my opinion, and that opinion is shared by many citizens, that
4862	COMMONS
Proposed Deduction from. Income Tax home owners and tenants in rooming houses and apartments deserve fairer consideration by the Minister of Finance in regard to municipal taxes. For these citizens the present taxation system involves a flagrant case of double taxation in that the federal personal income tax is a tax on municipal taxes as well as on income. The United States recognizes the inequity of this practice. Home owners in the United States are now permitted to deduct their municipal taxes from income for federal tax purposes. I also want the Minister of Finance to consider what is being done in the United States and the United Kingdom, whose mortgage interest on owner occupied homes is deductible with respect to personal income tax that is paid to the federal government.
During the past few years many representations have been made to the federal government and the royal commission on taxation, urging the government to adopt the tax practices of the United States and the United Kingdom. Repeatedly over the years the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, in its submissions to the government of Canada and to provincial governments, has recommended the deduction of municipal taxes from personal income tax in computing personal income, the deduction of home mortgage interest from personal income in computing taxable income, and the payment by all federal crown corporations of grants equivalent to property taxes that would otherwise be payable if the assessable properties of such crown corporations were owned privately.
In the present manoeuvring to give Canadians a new tax system it is obvious that there is growing concern that the problem of municipal taxes is not being given the attention it properly requires and deserves by federal and provincial ministers of finance. I believe it is imperative for the federal Minister of Finance, with his provincial counterparts, to study this serious matter more deeply and to give it more favourable consideration.
House and home stand at the centre of people's lives. Proper shelter means security. It also means independence and privacy. A decent home is also a good place for parents to bring up a family in a favourable environment. I believe that it is high time to insist that the social aspect of housing be among the determinants of economic policy instead

DEBATES	November 29, 1967
of its unfortunate victim. In Canada the private, family home is essential to our traditional way of life. Private home ownership is considered an undeniable natural right. But in the present condition of our economy, ownership of a private home imposes a heavy financial burden on the ordinary Canadian citizen. After paying an average of $26,000 for a home plus mortgage payments in a city lust Toronto and after paying all kinds of provincial and federal taxes, the citizen is additionally burdened with steadily increasing municipal taxes.
On reading a brief from the Toronto Real Estate Board dated February, 1967, which was sent to various levels of government, I learned that Canada's housing stock is now composed of 5,505,000 dwelling units, of which 3,495,000 or 64 per cent are owner occupied and 2,010,000 are rented. In metropolitan Toronto, where I represent the constituency of Parkdale, there are 555,000 dwelling units, of which 320,000 are owner occupied and 2,010,000 are rented. In met-units. On page 9 of this brief I also read that, in the opinion of the board, to encourage home improvements, the federal government should allow municipal tax payments and interest payments on home improvement loans in urban renewal areas and neighbourhood conservation areas to be deductible items in the calculation of personal income tax. To prevent home owners who improve their properties from being penalized, municipal governments should guarantee that assessments on rehabilitated dwellings will not increase for at least five years.
The Toronto Real Estate Board also revealed in the brief that the Ontario government "home ownership made easy plan", which is to assist many families to buy homes, will require an annual public subsidy of approximately $300 a year per unit. Also, there is no guarantee that the most deserving or needy families will be helped. Moreover, municipal governments have not been receiving the assistance they require from provincial governments to provide essential services to their residents. This complaint is directed mostly with respect to the requirements of education.
Canadian municipal governments find themselves forced to continually expand their public utility activities. Expenditures on education, transportation, health services, social welfare and police protection have increased steadily. Heavy municipal government expenditures in these areas are a great burden on property owners and apartment
November 29, 1967	COMMONS
dwellers. Many Canadians are asking themselves, to what extent should they, through municipal taxation, continue to finance education and health and welfare services? The benefits of such municipal services are felt not only province-wide but throughout the nation. It is quite appropriate, therefore, for these expenditures to be financed by federal and provincial governments.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
I think that provincial governments could save much money by cutting out unnecessary projects and the savings would help greatly to cover education costs. It will take wise management and courageous leadership on the part of governments to devise fiscal measures to rearrange tax responsibilities. That will involve continuous co-operation and consultation with all levels of government. Provincial governments must realize that our federation is co-operative. It is to be hoped that enough responsible people at all levels of government will get together often enough to bring about suitable fiscal adjustments. The revision of responsibilities in this area is an essential need in our country.
Experts tell us there are mainly five factors which are responsible for the housing shortage in Canada, namely, unstable mortgage financing conditions, insufficient serviced land, restrictive construction bylaws and conflicting building codes, and an inequitable tax base. It is the inequitable tax base that has forced municipal authorities to raise taxation and levy rates as a direct result of the burdens of financing education and other essential services.
I realize that in an effort to halt rising municipal taxes the soundness of our dollar and its protection from further inflation are important requirements. Inflation has eroded the security of many of our people who depend upon a fixed income. The heavy load placed upon most property taxpayers produces unhappy results. Old people with limited retirement incomes and small pensions are especially hurt. They denied themselves many things in earlier years in order to pay off mortgaged homes only to find themselves faced now with rising municipal taxes.
We have been told that older people would be better off in apartments, but they have no choice. They have to stay in their own homes. They also have to cope with problems of maintenance and they regularly face a rise in municipal taxes. When they try to make some improvements they are taxed again. Tenants in apartment houses face an increase
DEBATES	4863
Proposed Deduction from Income Tax in rent whenever municipal taxes rise. Also, as costs of maintenance soar tenants in apartment houses are forced to pay higher rents.
It is necessary to work out techniques that will give municipalities more revenues without steadily raising taxes on family dwellings. This is an objective which demands an all-out effort on the part of responsible ministers of the government. I realize that taxation should be on an equitable basis. I also understand the concern of the Royal Commission on Taxation when it states that it is difficult to devise a system of credits for property taxes against personal income tax liabilities which would be equitable as between those who own their homes and those who rent from others. However, despite the difficulties which present themselves, a serious effort should be made to find out what portion of municipal taxes and rent payments can be considered for relief from federal personal income tax. The federal government has been able to give numerous tax credits to businessmen, industry and corporations, and also hands out various kinds of subsidies. I now ask for fair tax treatment for the unfortunate Canadian workers and heads of families.
As I have stated previously, the present system appears to be a flagrant case of double taxation in that the federal personal income tax is a tax on municipal taxes as well as on income. Furthermore, it was possible for the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom to recognize the inequity of this type of taxation. That is why home owners in the United States are permitted to deduct municipal taxes from income for federal taxation purposes.
I strongly urge the Minister of Finance and his advisors to give favourable attention to these views and facts and come to the aid of the overburdened taxpayers in owner-occupied homes, boarding houses and apartments who are adversely affected by rising municipal taxes. I also appeal to all hon. members to support this motion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the remarks I wish to make on the motion before us will be brief. I think the motion is in one sense too narrow to be supported. In another sense it is too vague and too discriminatory to be supported.
It is narrow because it extends an opportunity for relief from the full weight of personal income tax only to one group of people in our society. As hon. members know, there
November 29, 1967
4864	COMMONS
Proposed. Deduction from Income Tax are others in our society who are denied the opportunity to make deductions when computing their personal income tax in respect of expenditures which they are bound to make in order to earn a living. If the motion had been broad enough in its terms to include, for example, the opportunity for a working man or woman to deduct the cost incurred in buying special protective clothing, articles which are often required by provincial law to be worn for safety purposes, it might be more acceptable. Workmen's compensation board regulations, certainly in British Columbia and no doubt in other provinces, require that individual workers in certain occupations must wear hard hats.
We think such expenses as these should be covered by the hon. member's motion since the workers concerned are now required by law to purchase a particular item before they can go about the business of earning a living.
I have used hard hats as one example but one could extend the list almost indefinitely. Loggers, construction workers and others are obliged to wear special types of clothing. I wish to include in this list also those workmen who have to buy tools, equipment and so on which are necessary to them in the earning of their livelihood. Had the motion made provision for these things it might have been more acceptable.
I turn now to the discriminatory feature of this motion. What is the position of two groups in particular, tenants who rent living premises in the urban areas and those who pay board and lodging, including employees working for mining and logging companies in cases where it is necessary for them to go out of town to work? In neither of these instances does the motion as I read it recognize that endorsement of what is proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale would amount to discrimination, that it would be unfair to the man who has to earn a living in a construction camp or a logging camp.


Stanley Haidasz: I did mention in my speech that apartment dwellers and dwellers in boarding houses should also be allowed to deduct that part of the rent which represents the payment of municipal taxes.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I did not take my seat because 1 did not want you to be put in the awkward position of having recognized two members at once. I did not think the hon. member was rising to ask a question. What the hon. member said in his speech and what is contained in the motion


are two entirely different things. If the hon. member had this sort of conception he should have put it in the motion. The motion has been on the order paper since May 9, 1967, and it reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be deductible from federal personal income tax.
If the thought was in the mind of the hon. member that tenants should be able to deduct that portion of the rent they pay which would reflect their proportionate share of the residential taxes, the motion should have said so. What I am saying is that the motion is too narrow in that sense, and all that the hon. member did in his introductory remarks was to add something to his own motion that is not contained in it.
I also said that something else should have been contained in the motion. The hon. member and I are on the same ground. Neither of us agrees with the motion that he has put forward and which he himself has found deficient. If he did not find it deficient, why did he make all these additions and speak on something that was not included in the motion?
I submit that the hon. gentleman either drafted his motion poorly and made it too narrow or, once having drafted it and got it on the order paper, realized it was too narrow and thought he had better enlarge on it in his introductory remarks. I would gladly, if the hon. member desired, try to help him out of his difficulty by drafting an appropriate amendment to the motion, but I do not think we have time now for that. It is not my function to assist him in making his motion more acceptable. I think he is going to be stuck with the motion he introduced and which he now realizes is one he should not have introduced or that he should have drafted it in a different way.
The hon. gentleman has substantiated my view that the motion is too narrow and discriminatory because it does not fully take into account the position of others in our society. Therefore the motion should not be accepted by the house, and when it comes to voting on it I hope the mover and I will be voting the same way. I shall be voting against it.


Stanley Haidasz: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, may I say that in the words "residential taxes" I imply taxes paid by all residents, including the residents of private homes, rooming houses and apartment houses, as I stated in my speech.
^November 29, 1967	COMMONS


Frank Howard: On another question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I understand the hon. gentlemen is a parliamentary secretary and I wish to say his ability at draftsmanship will not get him into the cabinet if this is an example of it.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what was said by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who spoke before me, I am pleased to support the objective of the resolution moved by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).
The purpose of this notice of motion is to help not only the people who wish to own a house but also those who have already made the necessary sacrifices and personal efforts in order to buy or build a house.
This resolution involves a change in the Income Tax Act. I think this motion will give satisfaction to those who are endeavouring to improve the present system, because if we analyse the situation somewhat, we find that the present taxation system, as pointed out by the hon. member, has greatly contributed to the increased cost of living.
That increase in the cost of living has created real problems for our school and municipal organizations, because all the serv-cies we receive from those intermediate bodies become increasingly expensive. This unexpected increase in essential services is reflected at the present time in the sale of many private properties.
When the government established taxation at the source, it was felt that, as a basic deduction, the amount of one thousand dollars represented the basic necessities, and although, that exemption is completely inadequate today, the government keeps it in force. Although the cost of living has doubled, the labourers, the Canadian workers are still required to pay according to schedules established about 20 years ago.
Therefore, in my opinion, it would be very appropriate to amend the Income Tax Act so that home owners might deduct from their taxable income any amount paid as property, municipal and school taxes for the houses in which they live. In so doing, the government could counter the slackening in the building industry at the present time by encouraging the Canadian people to invest their money in the purchase of a home, because the present situation has brought about a decrease of about 30 per cent in housing starts, for the whole country, as compared to 166,000 starts in 1965. Indeed, statistics show that Quebec
DEBATES	4865
Proposed Deduction from Income Tax experienced a decline of 11 per cent in 1967, compared with 1966.
Nevertheless, a sustained publicity drive has led Canadians to believe that present-day administrators are concerned with their fate. However, Mr. Speaker, we still remember that a $500 bonus used to be granted to those who had their homes built during the winter season.
That bonus has now been withdrawn while the money from the 11 per cent tax on building materials is still coming into the government's coffers.
This same government decided recently to grant an additional amount to reduce as much as possible the cost of rents in modest districts of Montreal. This is a most human decision which deserves commendation but we have poor districts in a rich country such as ours because our social legislation is not satisfactory.
I am in favour of assisting the poor, but I am even more in favour of a measure like the one introduced by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) and I am in favour of an amendment to enable private owners to live normally in decent districts.
Every human being dreams of home ownership and all men dream of becoming one day the owner of a home for their wife and children. In Canada, private ownership is closely related to the family and it is a natural right that all hon. members in this house are no doubt anxious to protect.
Inasmuch as the object of that motion is to lighten the financial burden carried by the Canadian citizen and to encourage him to become a home owner, a step that will not place on him an unbearable burden but will enable him to fulfill his aspirations, I hope the government will give it all possible consideration.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the motion now before the house which reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be deductible from federal personal income tax.
It is refreshing to listen to a supporter of the government urging members of all parties to support a motion calling for tax reductions. This is more encouraging than the statement forecast that we will no doubt
November 29, 1937
4866	COMMONS
Proposed Deduction from Income Tax listen to tomorrow night. I would much rather see action taken in the direction indicated by this resolution than in the direction we anticipate that the government will be moving tomorrow night. The fact that the resolution is not broad enough to lighten the burden of other categories should not discourage us from supporting it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
As I listened to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) it seemed to me that he referred to at least one or two proposals which have been discussed and supported on other occasions in the house by a great many members. Therefore, as I say, I do not think the fact that other categories are not included in the terms of this resolution should discourage us from supporting it.
We give our complete support to this motion because the proposal has been a plank in the platform of the Social Credit party for a long time. We have never retreated from this position. I hear someone saying "shame", indicating that we have retreated from support of this principle. I do not feel that way about it. I am very happy to associate myself with this measure at this time. I am sure all hon. members have paid lip service to the principle that home ownership is desirable and that everything possible should be done so that every Canadian citizen who desires to own and live in his own home may have the opportunity to do so. I say "lip service", Mr. Speaker, because the record of the government in this field is far from commendable in this regard.
We remember that after a great deal of talk about the desirability of home ownership a winter bonus plan was implemented whereby those who built homes in the winter season would receive a bonus. We were informed that the purpose was to take up the slack in unemployment but that it was not necessarily designed to assist in the home building and home ownership program. Nevertheless it was appreciated and I believe it did assist some people in proceeding with building plans and in owning their own homes. But then we found that the exemption from the 11 per cent sales tax was withdrawn. This more than offset any benefit that accrued from the other plan.
In recent times the government has announced increases in the mortgage rates under Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. All these things have caused us to wonder whether the members of the government are really sincere in their statements


that they want to encourage home ownership. As the situation now stands, those in the low income brackets, or even in the medium income brackets, find it almost impossible to proceed with their building plans and to build their own homes. I do not believe we are giving them very much encouragement because it seems that every measure introduced and every announcement made in this regard make it more difficult for them to proceed with such plans.
As I have said, we support the proposal that the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be deductible from federal personal income tax. We also support the idea that mortgage interest should also be included as an exemption. Under our present system a person pays in capital and interest an amount double the initial cost. Therefore, in considering this entire program and the desirability of home ownership, because of its social as well as its economic ramifications, I believe mortgage interest should be included as well even though the hon. member did not see fit to include it in his motion.
I should like to join with the hon. member for Parkdale in his impassioned plea that members of all parties support this resolution. I know he is sincere in presenting it and in making this plea to hon. members. I trust that no member on the government side will stand up and talk out the motion. I hope it will be permitted to come to a vote. Last night a measure was defeated which would have added to the burden of the taxpayers by increasing postage rates. This motion, if adopted, will help to decrease that burden. I hope that in this instance the member on the government side who has introduced this motion will have the support of the house and that it will be passed before six o'clock.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Proposed Deduction from Income Tax which accrues to an individual through his own use or consumption of an income generating asset. As I said, no matter how interesting such a concept might be in a theoretical sense, certainly if you are not getting income which you can spend or use to improve your living standard you are not getting any benefit from it. The Carter commission will have to go a long way to persuade most of the reasonable people in this country that they are getting a benefit from some type of imputed income in respect of which they are spared the opportunity of paying income tax, particularly having regard to a home which they own themselves and in which they live.
The Carter commission overlooked the basic point that the great majority of home owners do not purchase their homes for investment purposes but for the purpose of shelter. If a home or dwelling were purchased as an investment then one could possibly see its argument, but the fact of the matter is that obviously the overwhelming majority of people who own their own homes bought them to provide themselves with shelter. Their aim was to get an adequate roof over their heads. I do not think it is sensible at all to treat a home owned and occupied by an individual as a form of investment.
Another argument is made, and again I am not stating it as my argument, that if a person vacated his house he could rent it and get income from it on which he would have to pay taxes. Of course, if a person vacated his house he would have to go out and rent or buy another one and he would have to get the money to pay the rent or to purchase another house. In any event, as a practical matter a person occupying his own home would in very few cases have the means to permit him to go out and rent another home or buy another home while putting his original dwelling up for rent or sale as a commercial matter. This is simply not a realistic possibility at all.
As the hon. member for Parkdale put it so well, and other members also, I think home ownership is something that should be encouraged. A person who owns his own home obviously has an interest in and a concern for it which does not exist in the same way on the part of an individual renting an apartment or a dwelling of another sort. The decision to rent or buy is a personal and optional one, and it therefore cannot be said that people who decide to rent, having made a personal decision after taking into

consideration the possibility that if the law is changed they cannot deduct their property taxes, are being treated in an unfair way or would be treated in an unfair way if they were not able to make a similar type of deduction. But in any event the hon. member for Parkdale has pointed out that his resolution implies the working out of a scheme that would afford similar benefits to someone renting an apartment or a house. Of course, we should remember that many people who own their own homes are people with limited incomes-people on fixed incomes and people who are retired. For these people the burden of residential taxes is very real. It falls on them much more heavily proportionately than on people who have other income besides their pensions and whose income may not change for years at a time. This certainly should be kept in mind.
So the argument of the Carter commission that the person who owns and occupies his own dwelling is getting some benefit because he does not have to pay income tax on an imputed income is one which the majority of the people of this country will find very hard to accept. Most people will take the common sense view that if they are not getting the income and are not deliberately forgoing it, it is certainly not a benefit. The fact that they are not being asked to pay income tax on income they do not get is nothing for which the royal commission or the government can take credit. This is an interesting argument in the form of a sort of verbal sleight of hand but, as I said, it is one which I think the population of this country will find very hard to accept.
Another argument that may very well be raised against the proposal of the hon. member for Parkdale is that those people who are more affluent and have larger incomes and larger homes will get a greater benefit because if a person has a larger home, one with 20 rooms or more, he will pay larger property taxes and thus get a greater benefit than someone who has a more modest cottage elsewhere. In my opinion there is a ver>
simple answer to this argument, namely, to place a maximum on the amount of property tax that can be deducted for income tax purposes.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Harold Edward Winch: That is not in the resolution.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It may not be in the resolution but the resolution is before us for the purpose of discussion in order to help clarify
November 29, 1967	COMMONS
what should be added to it and developed from it. This is the very reason we have this House of Commons, to exchange views of this sort. I do not criticize the hon. member of the New Democratic party who made that interjection. It will go on the record.


Harold Edward Winch: I am in favour of what you suggest.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Thank you. This proves my point, Mr. Speaker, that this type of discussion here is very constructive and will put suggestions before those charged with the responsibility of formulating tax policy in a way that otherwise could not be done. We already have something like this in our income tax law. If I am not mistaken there is an upper limit on the amount that can be deducted with respect to donations for charitable purposes. I think there is also an upper limit on the amount that can be deducted with respect to money paid out for medical expenses. Actually it is a percentage. But the point I am trying to make is that this principle exists already in our income tax law.
When we proceed to consider changes of the type contemplated by the hon. member for Parkdale the argument that will be raised against them by some-and it is not one being made by me-is that the more affluent and wealthy people will receive a proportionately greater benefit. This argument can be dealt with by placing a ceiling or upper limit on the amount of property tax that would be subject to deduction.
There is one argument that may be raised which may be somewhat more difficult to answer. There are those who may come forward and say that by accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale a certain amount of tax revenue which we now receive will be lost. Of course, to carry out the programs of the government which the public desire, tax revenue is necessary. I think the answer to that argument is to review our tax system to see whether there are areas which are not bearing their fair share of taxes, and try to make up the difference from these sources. Obviously it would not be sufficient merely to bring in the change proposed by the hon. member for Parkdale. At the same time we do this we would have to take a look at our tax system generally and make sure that the revenue which would not be obtained as a result of the change which I think the hon. member is constructively proposing would be made up through some other source.
DEBATES	4869
Proposed Deduction from Income Tax
I think this is why the approach of the government in planning to present to us a white paper setting forth its views on the proposals of the Carter commission is very constructive. Rather than dealing with these things in a piecemeal manner-I make this comment not in a critical fashion at all with respect to the constructive suggestion of the hon. member for Parkdale-we will have a package brought before us and will be able to see the effect of any change on other areas of our tax policy.
I believe this is a very good way to go about it, especially since it is my understanding that the government's white paper will be referred to a committee of this house for study. In the course of that study we will hold public hearings and be able to hear not only from members of this house but also from people from the general public sector. Speaking personally, I hope this may be a precedent for an evolution in tax policy.
The United States goes about making budgets in a much more open fashion than we do. I am not saying I am completely familiar with their method. However, 1 think they bring down a budget document, or rather the president presents a budget message to congress and congress holds a lengthy series of public hearings. There is quite a public discussion before the laws are passed, and often many amendments are made. I do not think this method shakes to its roots the financial structure of that country.
It is my feeling, now that I have been here for several years, that whatever may be said for our present system of budget-making there is a lot to be said for moving forward and having a more open system than we have at the present time when making and changing tax laws. I hope the remarks already made in the house by the Minister of Finance with regard to handling the recommendations of the Carter commission may be an omen of further development in our parliamentary system with respect to budget-making.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I again want to commend the hon. member for Parkdale for his very constructive proposal. I think a proposal of this type would do a lot to remove the burden which I believe already falls too heavily on people who occupy their own homes, many of whom are on very limited incomes. Certainly there are needs for education, the building of roads and social welfare at the municipal level. These matters are very important. But 1 think the

November 29, 1967
Business of the House
time has come to spread the method of payment of those needs over a much wider base than the municipal property tax. I therefore commend the hon. member for Parkdale once again for this most constructive proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the motion of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz). It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the feasibility of allowing residential taxes to be [DOT]deductible from federal personal income tax.
I would like to point out that the record of this government was very good last year. According to Southam Building Guide's indicator of future construction activity, housing contracts moved substantially upward from June to July.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Six o'clock.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Starts in July numbered 6,326,
27.6	per cent higher than 12 months ago. The statistics of the past few months, considerably higher than those of the corresponding months of 1966-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: Is it six o'clock?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is by one clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what is this? A Liberal caucus?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Hinfret):: The
hon. member for Middlesex East has the floor.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: The
hon. member for Middlesex East has the floor.


James (Jim) Gordon Lind: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the statistics of the past few months, which are considerably higher than those of the corresponding months of 1966, have brought the year-over-year cumulative gain for the first seven months to 25.8 per cent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the house leader? What will be the business tomorrow before we proceed with the message of the Minister of Finance in his budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will take the committee stage of Bill No. C-168, second reading of the Judges Act, second reading of the Government Employees Compensation Act, second reading of an act to establish a corporation for the administration of the national museums of Canada, committee stage of Bill No. C-151 with respect to C.N.R. financing, second reading of Bill No. S-19, an act respecting the boundary between the province of British Columbia and the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, and second reading of Bill No. S-18, an act to amend the Publication of Statutes Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us now what the program will be on Friday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If this program is completed tomorrow we will have a new menu for Friday, but if it is not completed I will invite hon. members to the same table.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 30, 1967