1967-02-23

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration) moved: that the house do go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:-
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the training of adults wishing to undertake occupational training: to authorize the entering into of contracts with provinces and employers to provide for the payment of the costs incurred in providing occupational training to those adults and to authorize the payment of charges for tuition or otherwise for the training of adults in occupational training courses not operated by a province or an employer; to authorize the payment of training allowances to certain adults undertaking occupational training; to authorize agreements with the provinces respecting research in respect of occupational training and the making of loans to provinces to assist in the purchase or construction of occupational training facilities; to authorize transitional agreements and arrangements with the provinces related to the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act; and to provide further for other related and incidental matters.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister now in a position to advise the house whether the former Studebaker Car Manufacturing Company of Canada has paid its indebtedness to the crown for customs duties, estimated to be $2.4 million?	.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the rule which has been followed by ministers of national revenue in the past is that in the House of Commons we
do not comment on the tax affairs of individuals or corporations. However, I indicated to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that in the near future I would give an explanation of this particular comment which appeared in the Auditor General's report, and I intend to do that. It is not quite ready at the present time.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When will the minister advise the house concerning the results of his departmental audit which I referred to him on November 3, November 8 and again on November 18, at which time he said he would report to the house concerning the investigation. When may the house expect this report?


Edgar John Benson: Soon.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the Studebaker company, and in view of the fact that the Auditor General has stated in his report that the company owes this money to the government, does the minister not think it would be fair for him to say whether they have or have not paid?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General did not mention the Studebaker corporation in his report.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister undertook to make an investigation through the Department of Justice as to whether the Studebaker company ought to pay on the Volkswagen cars which they brought in, is the minister going to report to the house whether the company is liable, how much it is liable for, and what steps he has taken to compel the company to pay? Surely the house is entitled to this information.


Edgar John Benson: The normal procedure would be to make an assessment, if an assessment were warranted, against a taxpayer. The taxpayer, if he chose to do so, then could appeal the matter and it mould become public knowledge. Ordinary assessments made against taxpayers, however, are not indicated to the House of Commons.
13370	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a result of the investigation which the minister undertook to make is he now in a position to say whether Stude-baker is liable for any amount of money by virtue of the Volkswagen cars which were brought into Canada under the auto agreement?


Edgar John Benson: Not at this point.


Michael Starr: I have a further supplementary question. In view of the report of the Auditor General that the company involved is one which ceased operation on March 17, 1966, could the minister tell me what other company ceased operation on March 17, 1966?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Ask the Auditor General.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Secretary of State of Canada.
Having listened to the last two broadcasts of "Tirez au Clair", it seems obvious to me that the producer has only one purpose: to make propaganda for socialism. Could the minister tell the house whether she intends to take appropriate action to subdue the socialist army which controls our national radio broadcasting system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is definitely out of order in its present form.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: May I ask a
supplementary question, in due form?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since the question is out of order, a supplementary question cannot be asked.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I frame the question in such a way as to make it acceptable?


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be glad to recognize the hon. member in a few minutes.

DEBATES	February 23, 1967



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Is it his intention to accede to the request of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers for the immediate appointment of a board of arbitrators, as provided for in the Railway Operations Act and as urged in a recent telegram to the minister?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member has asked this question because it gives me an opportunity to correct an erroneous impression that seems to be in the minds of some people at least, as I gather from a news report that was brought to my attention just before the house convened.
There has been no refusal on the part of the Minister of Labour to set up any board of arbitration. What happened was that parliament directed that first there should be mediation. There were four groups of unions involved. One group withdrew from the mediation process after it had been in progress for several weeks. That is the group referred to in the wire mentioned by my hon. friend. The three other groups proceeded with the mediation. I would say that the bargaining committees for 75,000 of the 118,000 or 119,000 workers involved have accepted by overwhelming votes the settlements worked out under the guidance of the mediator. Representatives of one of the other union groups met with me earlier this week, and we had what I think was a useful discussion.
The fourth group, the C.B. of R.T., who withdrew from the mediation have requested arbitration, but until you know whether you are going to arbitrate for one group or more it is very difficult-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. minister. I appreciate that he is anxious to give to the hon. member all the information at his command, but the answer should perhaps be briefer. It appears to the Chair that such a statement should be made on motions rather than in answer to a question.
February 23, 1967


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether an appointment to the Vatican, having ambassadorial status or the equivalent, is imminent.


Hon. Paul Martin (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend will realize that this question was answered by the Prime Minister a few weeks ago. There has been no change.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is Acting Prime Minister today.
My question refers to the statements made the day before yesterday by the Quebec premier when he expressed the wish that the committee instructed to consider reforms to our Canadian constitution be set up again.
Would the minister ask the federal officials who will study the constitutional reforms to expedite their work as much as possible, so that we may set up our own parliamentary committee to look into the constitution?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that this matter is constantly being looked into by the federal government and that there is no delay so far as we are concerned.



POSSIBLE INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of his statement yesterday regarding the possibility of increased oil exports to the United States, has the minister anything he can pass on to the house as to the immediate prospects of increased shipments of oil to that market?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker. I can only say that negotiations are proceeding with the United States on this subject.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENT BY B.C. PREMIER RESPECTING FEDERAL AID TO HYDRO PROJECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the honourable and most patient Minister of Finance based on a statement made by the premier of British Columbia in the British Columbia legislature on February 21, to the following effect:
That the federal government is withholding no strings attached financial aid from hydro projects in British Columbia in an effort to obtain part ownership of British Columbia's water and power resources.
My question is whether in view of the constitutional implications involved, this statement is a correct reflection of federal government policy.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the young, amiable and handsome member who has just asked the question that the statement made by the premier of British Columbia is, so far as I know, without foundation. I would categorize it as both absurd and without foundation.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, on Monday and Tuesday of this week the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam asked a series of questions in connection with the lay-off of some 900-odd workers at McKinnon Industries Limited in St. Catharines. Among the questions asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam were whether the union concerned had been able to secure the names of those certified by the adjustment assistance board and whether the board would be arranging a meeting with the union.
The facts are that the union applied to the board some time ago for certification of certain workers laid off at McKinnon Industries.
February 23, 1967

Inquiries of the Ministry Following an investigation the board found that there were a variety of reasons for the lay-offs, but that, in their opinion, out of the total of 900 or more who were laid off, some 395 jobs had been affected as a result of the operation of the automotive agreement.
On Monday of this week the union sent me a telegram, the one referred to in the questions by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, drawing attention to the fact that of the 900 or so workers who had been laid off, 255 male workers who had been certified by the adjustment assistance board had already returned to work. The union found this rather confusing.
As I stated in the house on Tuesday, I immediately informed the board of the contents of the telegram and I asked for a report. The board met on Tuesday of this week, and since that meeting, my information is that in determining the number of workers laid off in this dispute the board had named the 395 employees who had the most seniority at the time of what is sometimes called the "bumping process" which had been proceeded with in September of last year but which had not been completed. They have had to take another look at it. It seems that the bumping process has now been completed, and that a later date than September 9 should have been used.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a brief question and hope to get a brief answer. I want to ask the minister whether the union has been able to get the names of those certified because, as the minister will understand, it is not easy to deal with the situation unless they have the names.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer this question briefly. The trouble with my previous long statement was that it answered three or four questions. I will say to the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam that in order to ensure that the certifications will apply to workers, the secretary of the board has been asked to get in touch with the union representatives.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the
(Mr. Nicholson.)
Minister of Industry. I wish to ask if he can tell us whether all the motor car companies in Canada are using the same formula in applying the auto pact.


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure of the import of that question. I can say, however, that all the motor car manufacturers in Canada are subject to the same rules, regulations and order in council.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister is not sure, would he not agree that the auto pact should be referred to a standing committee of the house so we may be able to ascertain the true facts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the fact that ships on the St. Lawrence cannot count on the services of Canadian icebreakers, does the minister intend to table in the house a copy of the instructions given to the icebreakers in operation on the St. Lawrence and does he propose to set up an inquiry on the role of the icebreakers and their efficiency in assisting ships on the St. Lawrence?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will give most careful consideration to the hon. gentleman's request.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce if he could report progress on the negotiations regarding the proposed surcharges on shipping into the port of Vancouver. The minister was good enough to say he would take the question as notice. Is he in
February 23, 1967

a position today to give an answer to my inquiry?
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): Yes, Mr. Speaker. The National Harbours Board and the department have been in direct communication with the transpacific freight conference of Japan directly and through our embassy in Tokyo with respect to the announcement of the intended 15 per cent surcharges on freight rates to the port of Vancouver.
Their attention has been drawn to the marked improvement in operating conditions in that port, which are being restored to normal. The conference recognizes that conditions have considerably improved, and it is hoped that the threat of surcharges has been removed.


Mr. Fulion:: The minister has answered, as I understand it, with regard to the proposed surcharge by the Japanese conference. I understand a similar surcharge has been proposed by the conference working out of San Francisco. Does the minister's reply extend also to that proposed increase?


Mr. Winlers:: That one is under protest, Mr. Speaker, and I express the hope the same answer will apply. I am not certain on that point as yet.



CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN MEETING RESPECTING LATIN AMERICAN COMMON MARKET

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce): A question was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke about a meeting in April in Uruguay designed to set up a common market for 19 Latin American nations. The question was about Canada's participation. I understand that a tentative meeting is being called for next April by 20 American republics which are members of the Organization of American States. Among the subjects which may be discussed is a proposal that the still developing Latin American free trade association be converted into a Latin American common market as rapidly as possible. Canada is not a member of the Latin American free trade association, and is not involved in the April meeting.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South' Centre):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker, if I could get his attention. Yesterday I framed a question in the rather confused style of the minister's answers, and I made a mistake. Today I want to put it in my own style. Is it the government's intention to reduce our commitments to NATO and NORAD and make the peace keeping activities under the United Nations the main effort of our armed forces?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles:: Why not?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Halifax):: My question is for the Secretary of State. I wonder if she would be kind enough to answer certain rumours that are going around by advising the house whether she has one of those infamous colour television sets, either in her office or her apartment?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: Sure; I have one in my office, as any minister responsible for the C.B.C. has always had.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question on this subject was put on the order paper and answered.



PROPOSED B.C, LEGISLATION PERMITTING WORK IN MINES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['No, Mr. Speaker. There has been a suggestion that something might be done under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, but no new legislation is being contemplated.']
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I have
a question for our Secretary of State for External Affairs which arises out of his having ratified last fall, on behalf of Canada, an
I.L.O. convention having to do with the prohibition of women working in mines. I should like to ask the minister whether he is aware that a bill which will allow women to work in mines has been introduced into the legislature of British Columbia. If so, can he
13374	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry tell us whether this proposed legislation in any way contravenes the international convention?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member asks a question which is clearly out of order. For one thing he is asking for an expression of opinion on a legal matter, and that cannot be done on orders of the day.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteiih (Perth):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Is the government considering legislation to insure Canadian companies in developing countries against loss through nationalization, revolution or any other political development under their governments?


Robert Henry Winters: No, Mr. Speaker. There has been a suggestion that something might be done under the provisions of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, but no new legislation is being contemplated.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is an estimated two million word backlog of English-French translation in government work, representing about six man years of labour, is the government giving any consideration to the early termination of the activities of the commission on bilingualism and bicultural-ism, which compounds this problem?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question as asked includes an inference, and cannot properly be asked at this time.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I wish to rephrase my question to the Acting Prime Minister, and ask him whether he will give consideration to releasing the staff now engaged by the B and B commission in order to shorten the delay which presently exists in the translation of government documents, and speed up the process of government.

DEBATES	February 23, 1967



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether orders have been transmitted for the return of the hon. member for Leeds from his worldwide trip.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know the hon. gentleman is envious both of the opportunity which has been given to the hon. member for Leeds and of the distinguished way in which he is carrying on his activities.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister what is the fee for joining the J. R. Matheson appreciation organization.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the leader of the house with reference to the special committee on the procedure of the House of Commons. The motion setting up this committee was passed on January 25. Can the hon. gentleman say when the personnel who are to serve on the committee will be named, and can he tell us what are the government's intentions for this committee during the remainder of this session?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: I hope the persons who are to serve on this committee will be designated today. As to the plans of the committee, I cannot very well speak on the committee's behalf.



EXPO '67 PROPOSED IMPORTATION OF VESSEL FOR USE AS FLOATING HOTEL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I believe my question should be directed to the Minister of National Revenue inasmuch as it relates to customs matters. Has any application been made to bring a ship called the Florida into Montreal harbour from its present berth at Tampa, Florida some time around March 1 to be used as a floating hotel for visitors to Expo? In view of the fact that the Florida is built of wood to the extent of some 25 per
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
cent and is similar in construction to the Yarmouth Castle, which burned and caused the loss of so many lives, will the use of this vessel be permitted for the purpose intended?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Since I do not think there is any immediate urgency about this question I suggest it be placed on the order paper.



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Malher (New Westminster):: had wished to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In his absence his parliamentary secretary might take it as notice. Having m mind the recommendation of the committee on justice and legal affairs with regard to mandatory breathalizer tests for drinking drivers, is the minister considering such a provision?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-220, to make provision for appeals to an immigration appeal board in respect of certain matters relating to immigration-Mr. Marchand-Mr. Batten in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose yesterday clause 21 of the bill was under consideration. Clause 19, with an amendment proposed by the hon. member for York South, and clause 20 were allowed to stand.
On clause 21-Certificate of minister and Solicitor General.


Mr. Bell (Carlefon):: I wonder whether the hon. member for Greenwood would permit me just a moment in which to raise a matter arising from the deliberations of the joint special committee on immigration sitting today in Montreal.
I am advised that this committee, in a resolution moved by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and passed unanimously, asked this house and the committee of the whole not to proceed further with the legislation now under consideration until the special committee has completed the hearing of the evidence in Montreal, much of which apparently relates to this particular bill. Could the leader of the house or the minister
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board indicate the attitude of the government toward this unanimous request in a resolution moved by a junior minister, the hon. member for Parkdale? This is a request to which I am sure serious attention should be paid, particularly if, as indicated, evidence is being taken in relation to the bill before us.


Jean Marchand: I heard about this resolution which was adopted in Montreal this morning. As to the suggested procedure itself, I am not very happy about it. A committee sitting outside Ottawa is asking the house to hold up an important piece of legislation. The committee knew this question has been under consideration since Monday, and if this matter was of such importance to the special committee members it would have been possible for them to have been here yesterday.
Nevertheless, though I do not agree with the procedure, I am ready to hold up clause 1 of the bill so the members of the committee may be given an opportunity to communicate their views to the committee of the whole.


Michael Starr: But suppose it was the intention of the committee to propose amendments to certain clauses in this bill which have not yet been passed. If these clauses are carried there will be no opportunity for the hon. members concerned to give effect to their proposals.


Jean Marchand: Most of the clauses have been adopted now. There are only a couple of clauses which remain to be passed, so I do not see the purpose of postponing altogether the discussion in committee.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, in moving today the amendment to which I referred yesterday I will not repeat what I said at that time. I have here copies of the amendment I propose to move, which proposes to delete the present clause.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I ask the hon. member for Greenwood whether he now is referring to clause 21?


Francis Andrew Brewin: Yes, I am.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for
Greenwood.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, the proposal in my amendment of which I gave notice yesterday is to delete present clause 21. As the committee will know, this clause in effect provides for the removal of security cases from the jurisdiction of the appeal board! when the minister and the Solicitor Generali
13376	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board file a certificate asking that that be done. The amendment I propose simply provides that in fact there shall be an appeal in these cases as in other cases, but that the evidence and the sources of information in security cases should not be revealed. On the other hand, however, the appeal board may require that particulars as to the reasons for which the would be immigrant is being excluded be furnished by the department.
In any sort of proceeding it is an elementary and fundamental rule of justice that the case against a man should be set out with reasonable particularity so he shall have the opportunity to meet the case against him. I may say that as long ago as 1930 Chief Justice Duff of the Supreme Court of Canada said this rule was applicable to immigration proceedings. The Canadian Bill of Rights passed by this parliament speaks of a right to a fair hearing. It has been made perfectly clear that a fair hearing involves some degree of knowledge of the case which is made against the person concerned.
In his remarks yesterday dealing with what I have said about this, the minister spoke of the fact that I referred to immigrant applicants who came from behind the iron curtain. This is perfectly true; I did refer to them. I sought to point out the very great loss to Canada which could result from the application of security requirements which in my view are outdated, and which have brought about the exclusion of many persons from countries such as Poland and Yugoslavia.
I pointed out that this situation does not prevail in other western democratic countries such as France and Germany, which have imported labour in substantial numbers from behind the iron curtain who have made a very large economic contribution to the prosperity of those countries. I referred to this merely as an indication of my view that security precautions, even though they may be necessary in some cases, sometimes are given an importance far beyond what they deserve or beyond what is required.
The cases I have in mind in respect of this amendment are not primarily the cases of people who come from behind the iron curtain. I am thinking of people from all over the world, particularly from countries like Italy and Greece whose names presumably appear on the political lists in the countries from which they come. Personally I know that in many of these cases the information when investigated, turns out to be flimsy and inadequate. Unless these people have the
[Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	February 23, 1967
right of appeal and have the right to know the substance of the case made against them, then the people who are most deserving of consideration by this house in dealing with the matter of immigration appeals will be excluded from the application of the legislation.
The minister spoke of the immigrant or the sponsor having no rights. I am sorry the minister is engaged at the moment; perhaps he will have an opportunity to look at my remarks later. I should like to say to him that this statement that they have no rights is a misconception; it is not a sound statement. In the past we have conferred and no doubt in future we in this parliament will confer statutory rights on people who wish to come to Canada. We confer those rights largely for our own benefit; we wish them to have a fair hearing.
Again, if the minister were to doubt my statement on this matter I would refer him to the Supreme Court of Canada case of Leon Ba Chai in respect of which Chief Justice Taschereau, speaking of the Supreme Court of Canada, clearly stated that the father of a would be immigrant who sought to bring his child to Canada had a clear right to a fair hearing in accordance with the law.
We are now trying to expand this right by giving a right of appeal. We should give that right full scope by making sure the right of appeal is available to those who need it most; that is, the cases involving so-called security reasons. I notice the minister is disengaged now, and perhaps the house will forgive me if I repeat what I said a moment ago. If the minister will look at the Leon Ba Chai case he will find that no less a person than Chief Justice Taschereau clearly stated there is a statutory right for a sponsor to have a fair hearing concerning the right of the person to be in this country.
So it is not correct, as the minister has repeatedly said, to say that no such right exists. No doubt other ministers have said this, and I do not blame the minister for saying it. These are rights which do not exist unless we as members of parliament have in fact conferred these rights on such people.
In dealing with this problem the minister says there is no half way house. He says you either must have a full hearing in which all evidence and all sources of material are disclosed in these security cases, or no appeal at all. I should like to say to the minister with all respect that someone has given him some very bad advice. So far as I am concerned I
February 23, 1967
am prepared to say that no one with any practical experience in these matters could possibly say it is not of great value to have what he considers to be a half way house, if you cannot have the full particulars made available, so as to enable the person involved to present his case in the way he could not otherwise present it.
As the Minister of Transport is aware, I was involved in these matters long before I became a member of this house. I can say without the slightest shadow of a doubt that the provision of particulars is a valuable right and one which enables an applicant to know the sort of case he must meet. Justice perhaps cannot be done perfectly in that way, but some degree of justice can be done. I should like to say to the minister-I am afraid this is repetition, but it does not seem to have sunk in too well-that this very right was provided during the war under the defence of Canada regulations in internment cases.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I was involved in a good many internment cases where the appeal board gave particulars to counsel for the parties, which enabled them to present their cases and on many occasions gain their clients' liberty. The minister says no lawyer would be satisfied to have what he calls this half remedy that I have suggested. I say to him this is really not so. Of course the lawyer would prefer to have the whole of the evidence, but it just is not the fact that if he cannot get the whole of the evidence he would not desire, in order to be able to protect his client, to have these particulars placed before him. The question is, can this be done without endangering the security of the state? It is necessary for a fair hearing of the appeal, and I suggest it can very well be done, as was done in my experience of internment cases.
During the course of his remarks the minister said he thought I was exaggerating when I suggested that half the value of this excellent bill-and I say it is excellent in its general purport-conferring these rights of appeal was taken away when the benefits of the legislation were denied in security cases. From my experience in this field, and it is very, very considerable, nearly half the cases involved are security cases or at least are assumed to be security cases, because no reasons whatsoever are given for the refusal to admit. I see the minister shaking his head. I can assure him without the slightest doubt if I can assure him of anything at all, that the
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board right proposed in the amendment which I now put before the committee is one that would be valuable and helpful to those concerned, and could be granted without endangering in any way the security sources from which some of this information comes.
If the minister does not choose to accept this amendment now I can assure him that he will continue to be plagued until this matter is cleared up and this right is made available to those people who are very often victimized because of mistaken identity, some error in their youth or some misconceived political views of some police authorities who are often not too well qualified to hold such views. Again I plead with the minister to give serious consideration to this amendment.
I now move the amendment, Mr. Chairman. I do not think I need repeat the wording.


Jean Marchand: I think the hon. member moved it last night.


Francis Andrew Brewin: No, I did not move it last night. I will read the amendment. I move:
That Bill C-220 be amended by striking out section 21 thereof and substituting the following: 21. If a certificate is signed by the minister that in his opinion the basis for the order of deportation or the refusal of admission in appeal before the board is a matter which affects the security of Canada and that it would be contrary to the interest of Canada to disclose the sources of information justifying such order or refusal, then the board may conduct the hearing of the appeal in camera and, in respect to such evidence, in the absence of the accused or his counsel, but the board may direct that the minister shall furnish to the board and the appellant particulars of the allegations without disclosing the source thereof.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. May I say at the outset that I am going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood. Perhaps today I should make further reference to the rules and practice in committee respecting the deletion of a whole clause and substituting another therefor. May I read from May's seventeenth edition, page 550:
An amendment to leave out a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill. Consequently it is out of order to propose to leave out the only effective words of a clause, or the words upon which the rest of the clause is dependent, or to offer any other amendment which is equivalent to a direct negative of the clause.
This principle has also been applied in the case of a clause substituting a new section for a section in an existing act of parliament when an amendment is offered to leave out all the words of the new section and insert another new section instead thereof...

13378	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
Furthermore, an amendment may not be moved to insert words at the beginning of a clause with a view to bringing forward an alternative scheme to that contained in the clause, or to leave out the whole substance of a clause in order to insert different provisions, or to substitute in effect a new draft for an existing clause.
I might say to the hon. member for Greenwood that my consideration of this particular point in our procedures has not gone far enough for me to be able to say that this ruling should be rigidly applied, but I point out to hon. members of the committee the procedure which is being gradually adopted. However, in this case I am going to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I do not have much to add to what I have already said on this clause. I just want to refer to a few examples given by the hon. member for Greenwood. The hon. member spoke of what is happening in France and Germany concerning the emigration of people coming from behind the iron curtain. I think he is right. But I do not believe that either in Germany or France immigrants have 10 per cent of the rights given to immigrants to Canada. Also, they are on the continent, and it is very easy to send them back home. Here in Canada it is another matter. So if the hon. member wants to have the type of legislation that France and Germany have in respect of immigrants, I do not think we will gain anything. Therefore I do not believe the comparison is just. If in France they believe a man is a danger to the security of the state he is just not allowed to enter that country, or he is deported right away without any appeal or any right. This is the situation, and I do not think we can compare it with the situation in Canada.
The hon. member mentioned that 50 per cent of the cases in which he was involved were security cases. I think he included in this figure prospective immigrants from behind the iron curtain who are not allowed into Canada. I am not speaking of sponsored immigrants but non-sponsored immigrants. The hon. member qualified those cases as security cases. Of course they are refused in accordance with our general security policy, but they are not refused on security grounds, formally speaking. Therefore if the hon. member includes these people in his figure I understand his argument; but I do not think they are security cases in the sense of "security" as it applies in this provision.
[The Chairman.]
DEBATES	February 23, 1967
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Let us forget about communists and speak of extreme right wing elements coming here from France; persons involved in violence in Algeria, for example. Of course we receive reports on such people, and we are in no position to give out this information; otherwise the system would be useless. So all we can say to this man is that his application is rejected in accordance with such and such section of the Immigration Act. We cannot go further than that; otherwise I think he would be deprived of the information on which the case was judged. Therefore in the present state of affairs I think it would be best to adopt the clause as it now stands in the bill and after we have received the report of the royal commission on security we will be better able to find new procedures to deal with those cases. However, in the meantime it would surely not be wise to accept the proposed amendment.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, it has become quite clear that the minister's mind is closed on this subject. In fact I may say, with all due respect to the minister, that he has not even bothered to read the amendment which was put before him.


Jean Marchand: Yes, I did.


David Lewis: If he had read it he would not have made the remarks he did. The problem on this issue, ever since second reading of the bill a couple of days ago, is that the minister and his advisers have closed their minds completely and if any suggestion is made to them, no matter how reasonable or practicable, they will not look at it. If he is in that mood, then nothing anyone can say will change his mind.
This is not a matter of the number of people affected even though my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, mentioned the figure of 50 per cent. I do not personally care whether one or 1,000 persons are affected. The point is that a basic principle is involved, one with which I am sure the minister and the Solicitor General agree. I do not understand the minister's logic when he says over and over again that it is right, proper and not frustrating to give the appellant no information at all but there is something vicious about giving him part of the information. I invite the minister to look at this amendment carefully. What the amendment proposes is that in a security case-and according to the amendment the minister will determine what is a security case-(a) the board will conduct
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
the hearing in camera; (b) the board will hear the evidence against the accused in the presence of the accused and his counsel and, (c) nevertheless the board may direct that the minister shall furnish to the board and the appellant the particulars of the allegations without disclosing the sources thereof.
What would be the effect in practice of this suggested procedure? The effect would be that the minister would provide a certificate saying that the case in question was a security matter and that a disclosure of the sources of information would be against the national interest. At that point the minister would provide the board and the appellant with a general statement as to the grounds on which the deportation order or the refusal of the application for admission was based. The statement may say: You were in Algeria between such and such years and you were guilty of acts of violence, or it may say, you were engaged in acts of robbery or other such acts in such and such a country during those years, and no more than that. The statement may say: You were a member of the Communist party in country A between such and such years. I say to the minister that while this information may not be adequate in an ordinary court hearing it would at least enable the person concerned to produce evidence to meet that allegation, if he can.
The amendment says that if the board so determines it can hold a hearing in camera and it can hear the officer of the department or the officer of the R.C.M.P. in the absence of the accused. It seems to me, after having read Hansard, that perhaps the minister did not understand the reference which I made in an earlier speech. I would therefore like to draw to his attention again my own personal experience, because this is the way in which we learn about these things. As I previously informed the house, about a year ago a client of mine, a certain employee of a government corporation, was refused certain rights in an alleged security matter. A royal commission of inquiry was appointed consisting of one person and certain information was provided to him similar to the particulars suggested in this amendment. Neither the person concerned nor I as his counsel were present when the commissioner heard the evidence against my client. The commissioner then asked him questions which were obviously based on the information he had received. My client was able to give answers and to persuade the commissioner that the allegation that he was a security risk was incorrect, and
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the commissioner so informed the Minister of Justice. Thereafter the man regained the rights which he had lost.
I say to the minister that on the basis of that experience, the experience of my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood, during the war before the internee appeal tribunals, and on the basis of experiences that I could cite to him for the next several hours, this kind of procedure is of value. It does not give the appellant the normal rights of a hearing, but we agree with the minister that these are abnormal circumstances and that normal rights cannot apply. We merely plead with the minister to apply that abnormal right which, however, would adequately protect the security of Canada and would give the person concerned a chance to be heard and to make his case. This is what this amendment is about.
When the minister says to me, as he did the other day, that he knows I would not be satisfied with this information, I say to him that at least I would know the limits of the information I can receive, if this amendment is adopted, and whether I like it or not would make no more difference than under the minister's proposal which would provide me with no information at all. However, I hope to be a member of parliament for a good many years and therefore I will not be acting in these cases, but if I did I would know what the law says.
What is the virtue of denying me all information and making me incapable of doing anything at all as against giving me some information on which I may be able to do something? I cannot follow the minister's logic. My hon. friend suggests that perhaps there is none. However, I do not follow the logic that it is better to give no information than some information. As far as this amendment is concerned, I suppose that if the minister gave a certain amount of information he could still argue that in the circumstances of the case this was all he could give.
Let me point out to him again, because I am certain he has not read the amendment carefully, that what this amendment says is not that he must give information to the appellant in every case but that the board may direct that the minister shall furnish particulars to the board and the appellant. Therefore he can argue with the board as to precisely what particulars should be given. Under this amendment he will have a great deal of leeway to control the situation with respect to the extent of information which it
13380	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board is safe to put before the appellant. Of course the board must be trusted with protecting national security as carefully as would the minister or any other member of this house.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
As I said, I rose to my feet this time with much greater frustration than the minister would have felt if he had agreed to provide part of the information, because quite a few speeches have been made on this subject. I believe the hon. member for Carleton made two or three speeches, the hon. member for Peace River has spoken, I have spoken for the fourth time on this subject, and my colleagues have also done so on two or three occasions. If we cannot persuade the minister, then I guess we cannot persuade him. If a majority of the committee is of the same opinion, then the will of the minister will prevail. However, I say to him that the really desirable purposes of this bill are somewhat tarnished. I am not going to say that they are half spoiled or anything like that because he would be right in accusing me of exaggeration. However, the purposes are tarnished by leaving in the bill a totally undemocratic and indefensible position. When a practical suggestion is made to him that defends Canada's security and at the same time makes some step toward justice in these security cases, it seems to me he ought not to have his mind as closed as it appears to be.


Thomas Miller Bell: Before a vote is taken on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Greenwood, perhaps I should make my views clear. With the general objectives that the hon. gentleman seeks to achieve I have not the slightest quarrel. Indeed, I uphold them enthusiastically. However, in so far as the procedures and techniques which this amendment would import are concerned, I have the gravest reservations. This field, as I have indicated earlier, is one over which I have agonized on many occasions. The view we take was clearly set forth in the amendment which we moved yesterday and which was voted down at six o'clock last night.
In our view these security and criminal intellegence reports should be laid before the board. The validity of them should be tested by the board. These reports must be kept secret, though the existence of such reports should be made known to the appellant. The views which we expressed at that time did not meet with the approval of the committee, so we are confronted with this amendment which has a number of weaknesses in its techniques and procedures.
I Mr. Lewis.J
DEBATES	February 23, 1937
I point out that, in the first instance, Mr. Chairman, it deals not at all with criminal intelligence. It sets aside completely clause 21 which deals with both security and criminal intelligence and substitutes nothing whatever for the procedures to be adopted with relation to criminal intelligence reports. I believe that in this day at least this may be equally as important as the reports with relation to security. As the minister pointed out yesterday, this may be dangerous for the individuals involved. If the committee adopted this amendment we would have to go further and make some provision for reports on criminal intelligence.
There is another objection to the draftsmanship of this amendment and that is the use of the word "particulars". In my view, sir, that is a term of art well understood by members of the bar and by solicitors. A demand for particulars is provided for under the Judicature Act, and under the rules of practice must be responded to with genuine particulars. There is a wide field of jurisprudence in that regard which the Supreme Court of Canada undoubtedly would import in any interpretation of this clause.
There will always be a barrister sitting as a member of the board, so I venture to suggest the board would import into the interpretation of this amendment all the law relating to a reply to a demand for particulars. I doubt that particulars, in the form given in civil cases in the law courts of this country, could conceivably be given to an appellant without disclosing the sources. If this is done I think you would dry up all possible sources.
I reiterate that with the general objective of the democratization of the procedure for dealing with security cases we on this side are in full accord. However, the particular manner in which this objective is sought to be achieved is one which does not commend itself to us. We believe it to be deficient as compared with the proposal we made yesterday.


Jean Marchand: I do not want to be repetitious, although I know that is inevitable at this stage, but I believe the hon. member for York South stated that we are denying the right of appeal under clause 21 to certain categories of immigrants or sponsored immigrants. This is not true. They still have the right of appeal to the board on legal grounds. In this case the board will not be in a position to exercise the discretion given to it under clause 15. However, the legality of the order may be contested and there may be a hearing.
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
If the hon. member for York South reads the clause carefully, I think he will find that board is restricted but the right of appeal still exists.


David Lewis: May I ask the minister what the legal grounds might be with which the board could deal in these cases?


Jean Marchand: I have no example to give, but perhaps the order for deportation may be against the law; it may not be well founded and it could be contested before the board.


David Lewis: I suppose the minister is referring to details such as the wrong person signing the order or no inquiry having been held. This really would not get us very far.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I have read the amendment moved by the New Democratic Party. It suggests that in certain cases which, under the bill, would be simply settled by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Cardin), it will be possible just the same to hold a confidential investigation in camera, and it will not be required to make public all the particulars on which either minister based his decision.
I listened closely as always to the statements of our friends of the New Democratic Party. I must say that, on several occasions, I had to change my mind after hearing certain interventions of our N.D.P. friends, who usually take the trouble to provide the house with a great deal of information.
A while ago, I was listening to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) say that a basic principle was involved and that he could not believe that the minister was logical. This is rather strange, but it proves that truth is not transcendent, that it is not the same for all, for I too, believe there is a basic principle involved. But it does not seem to be the same that is proclaimed by the hon. member for York South.
Nor can I believe that the attitude of our friends of the New Democratic Party is logical. I understand that some of them have had unfortunate experiences during the last war. It will be recalled that censurable and, from many points of view, unfortunate things have been done.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
However, it must be admitted that, in the history of a country such as ours, crises occur
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board and such things do happen. But the basic principle here, as I see it, is to determine how best we can protect the common good. And, in order to protect the common good-I am taking an extreme case here, because I do not think it can ever occur-suppose some injustice had to be committed-as I said before, I am carrying matters to extremes-such as, for instance, handing down a decision having an adverse effect upon the personal lives of 150 immigrants per year, because they are considered as risks. The government would still be justified in taking such action, because I feel that any Canadian government, of whatever political colour, must make such decisions, after the necessary investigations, in order to preserve the common good.
I must admit that I am concerned by the position taken by our friends of the New Democratic Party. I understand that it stems from their basic philosophy, namely the protection of the individuals, of human person. This helps us to understand their attitude, to a certain extent.
But I wonder whether they do not carry this concern, this solicitude for the human person too far, and even to the detriment of the commonweal, when, one after the other, they take in the house, the defence of certain habitual criminals, certain individuals who are obvious risks from the viewpoint of security. In certain cases, they even put pressure on these people who seemed satisfied with the situation imposed on them by the government, but who, under the pressure exerted by our friends of the New Democratic Party, make appeals which are rather unexplainable.
I wonder whether that justifies them in discrediting by certain statements and certain actions, the important role of our police force, and sometimes the role of the judicature-I am thinking about the judges appointed to royal commissions for instance.
I submit that the majority of Canadians want the government to have enough leeway to discharge its responsibilities, that is to protect the common good and to prohibit under this legislation, entry into our country, or to prevent someone from staying here any longer because that person, even if not guilty of treason or any violation of the security of the state, is suspected of such activity. On the other hand, I think that the Canadian people should get the benefit of the doubt, but not those exceptional cases.
If that amendment were accepted, we would achieve the opposite purpose. That
13382	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board would bog down the appeal board, because we know that most of those individuals, who are a security risk, usually have the means to retain the services of learned lawyers, counsel and financiers in order to prosecute their claims to a final conclusion. The board, therefore, will be hampered and will have to investigate such cases most of the time, while deserving cases will have to wait months and months before they can come up for consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister should stand firm on this point. The solicitor general and he should rely on the advice of the R.C.M.P. and all the other bodies which investigate such cases. In my opinion, they should take a strong and energetic position, thus meeting the wishes of most Canadians who are concerned about those serious cases.
There are several of them but I will give as an example that of some trouble-makers who were the instigators of some separatist movements in the province of Quebec and who are in jail right now, at least some of them. It was discovered that those people had immigrated to Canada under an Immigration Act which was too generous. If some teeth had been left in, it might have been possible to prevent those trouble-makers from coming here. I am thinking of one case which my hon. friends will recall. It deals with a man called Ramsay who, at about this time last year, entered Canada and confessed over the public radio network that he had been responsible for the racial troubles in Los Angeles, that he had been one of the agents in at least half a dozen revolutions in half a dozen countries. He also admitted that he was a trouble-maker and that, upon his arrival here, he had contacted the leaders of the most anarchic separatist movements in the province of Quebec. He was here and he could be heard over the public radio network Mr. Chairman.
However, I think the minister of immigration and the Solicitor General must have sufficient authority, without having to waste the time of their officials or their own time dealing with considerations or concerns related to the common good of the majority of Canadians. The minister should have enough authority to be able to say: No, that person shall not enter. Anyway, that should only be the exception, since there are a great number of desirable people in every country of the world who would like to enter Canada. Their applications should keep all immigration services busy. In my opinion, these services

DEBATES	February 23, 1967
should be granted all the time they need, enabling as many as possible to enter. I am not particularly concerned with immigrants from behind the iron curtain, but I nevertheless feel that the responsible minister should be able to exercise discretionary powers without having to waste their time with a lot of legal red tape, and God knows how much smart lawyers can think up.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the minister to take a firm stand and I repeat that, in so doing, he will be living up to the expectations of most Canadians, who are worried by the ease with which certain considerations can cause dissension in our midst.

Amendment (Mr. Brewin) negatived: Yeas, 7; nays, 24.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost. Shall clause 21 carry?


Jean Marchand: I should like to propose an amendment to this clause consequential upon that which was made to clause 15. In clause 15 we gave the board authority not only to stay an order of deportation, or an order refusing admission, but to quash such orders. I think we should make the same amendment to clause 21. I will therefore ask one of my colleagues to move:
That clause 21 of Bill C-220 be amended
(a)	by striking out lines 42 to 44 on page 7 and substituting therefor the following: "15, stay the execution of a deportation order or thereafter continue or renew the stay, quash a deportation order, or direct the grant of entry or landing to any person, or"
(b)	by striking out lines 9 and 10 on page 8 and substituting therefor the following: "interest for the Board to take such action."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Jean Marchand: With the permission of the committee I should like to revert to clause 19 which was allowed to stand yesterday. The hon. member for York South moved an amendment. As I stated at the time, I am in perfect agreement with the principle involved. I mentioned that I wished to instruct the officers who would have to follow this procedure, but he prefers to have an amendment to include this in the law. What I had in mind probably would have gone further. If the hon. member for York South is prepared
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
to modify his amendment I am ready to support it. I should like to read what I wish to propose:
That clause 19 of Bill C-220 be amended by adding thereto the following subclause:
Grounds	(2) Every appellant under section 11
of order or 17 shall be advised by the minor refusal ister of the grounds on which the deportation order was made or the refusal to approve the application for admission into Canada was based.
If the hon. member does not agree to the modification then I will not move this as an amendment.


David Lewis: It seems to me that this serves the purpose I had in mind. Since the minister and his advisers have changed the wording, I am sure there is good reason for this. I am quite happy with the amendment the minister has proposed. The only matter of substance which has been left out is the suggestion that the board would prescribe the manner of giving this information. I do not think that is necessary. I am quite prepared to accept the proposal the minister has made. I do not care who moves the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member be allowed to withdraw his amendment and then move this one.


David Lewis: I am not sure whether I formally moved my amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: As found on page 13363 of Hansard the hon. member for York South said:
I have copies of a proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. I move:-
If it is the wish of the hon. member for York South to withdraw his amendment, this can be done with the unanimous consent of the committee.


David Lewis: It will facilitate matters if I withdraw it. I therefore withdraw the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Lewis) withdrawn.


David Lewis: At this time I should like to move the amendment which has been proposed by the minister.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether it would be possible to revert to clauses 3 and 6. I have amendments I should like to propose to these clauses.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


Herman Maxwell Batten: Clauses 3 and 6 have been disposed of by the committee. It would be possible, with the unanimous consent of the committee, for the minister to revert to these clauses.


Mr. Bell (Carleton):: Perhaps the minister would tell us what he wishes to propose.


Jean Marchand: We have taken from the members of the board the power to sit alone in order to decide cases. We are afraid that too many cases will have to be decided by the board itself and therefore possibly it would be wise to foresee in this legislation the need to increase the number of members from seven to nine in order to have three panels. This is the purpose of the two amendments I wish to present.


Richard Albert Bell: I think there would be unanimous consent to revert to clauses 3 and 6.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 3-Board established.


Jean Marchand: There is one other point I should mention, the addition of a vice-chairman. If there are to be three panels I think we must have a chairman and two vice-chairmen. The amendment to clause 3 reads as follows.
(a)	by striking out line 2 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"Immigration Appeal Board consisting of not less than seven nor more than nine members to"
(b)	by striking out lines 12 and 13 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"One of the members to be chairman of the board and two of the members to be vice-chairmen of the board."
(c)	by striking out line 15 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"of the chairman, a vice-chairman or any other member or"
(d)	by striking out lines 21 and 22 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"person has been so appointed to act in his stead, a vice-chairman designated by the minister, has and may exercise and perform all of the duties"


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 6-Head office.
Jean Marchand: The amendment to clause 6 reads as follows:
That subclause 3 of clause 6 of Bill C-220 as added by amendment to clause 6, be amended by striking out the words "or the vice-chairman", and substituting therefor the following: "or one of the vice-chairmen"
13384	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause as amended agreed to.
On clause 20-Hearing of appeal.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that when clause 20 was called I would be moving an amendment. That amendment, however, was consequent upon the amendment I moved to clause 21. The amendment to clause 21 having been rejected by the committee, there is no point in proceeding with the amendment to clause 20.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 22-Jurisdiction of board.
Thomas Miller Bell: In respect oi this clause, would the minister indicate what the provisions are which are covered in lines 19 and 20 by the words "except as provided in the Immigration Act". To what does that refer?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I would have to inquire into this.


Richard Albert Bell: If the minister would make the explanation on clause 1 that would be agreeable to me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on a question which is related in principle to this clause as it deals with the exclusive jurisdiction of the board and appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada. My question of principle is related to members of this house of the legal profession who deal repeatedly with these problems for their constituents. My attention was first drawn to this situation by being informed that a former Conservative member of the house charged constituents for representations he made on their behalf to the minister, the board or the officials of the department. I was later informed by a couple of my Liberal friends that possibly one or two members on the government side of the house had indulged in this practice.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I remember the hon. member for Danforth, a man of the highest integrity who unfortunately is ill at this time, telling me this story. One of his constituents telephoned him to ask him to make representations to the appropriate authorities in connection with the entry into Canada of a sponsored immigrant. He took the matter up immediately by telephone. The department telephoned him later and said they had looked into the matter and this

DEBATES	February 23, 1967
person was eligible to enter Canada. The hon. member for Danforth informed his constituent of this. His constituent said, "Sir, I am quite willing to pay the usual fee." Which I understand can be up to $500 for this service. Of course the hon. member advised him at once that he would not accept any fee at all.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the hon. gentleman a question? He mentioned two parties. I was wondering whether he knew of any lawyers in any other party who had performed similar acts?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will come to that later in my remarks, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member can use his imagination. I have discussed this matter with members of all parties. I shall always give great credit to the Leader of the official Opposition for his stand on this question. He informed me that when he was elected to this house he advised all his legal partners that they were on no account to bring any matter to the attention of the federal government or any of its agencies because he had been elected for that purpose and would not charge a cent. While I differ sharply with the hon. gentleman on some questions, I give him great credit for this stand.
As a result of this information and other inquiries I made I introduced a private bill which is now on the order paper, an act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act in order to prevent this abuse occurring in the future. Mr. Maurice Western commented on my bill in the following manner:
To impose on members of the Canadian parliament a restraint accepted 300 years ago by the British parliament seems neither radical, nor revolutionary, nor avant-garde.
I do not have the opportunity to discuss that bill now but I shall do so at a later date. I have been concerned about this problem and have engaged in a great deal of correspondence on the matter. Before my bill was drafted I consulted two retired judges of the Supreme Court and got in touch with people in Great Britain and the United States. The bill was actually drafted by persons who are very concerned about this problem. However, Mr. Chairman, I shall have to deal with my bill when it comes before the house.
I want to ask the minister two questions at this point, because it is a matter of importance and principle. Does the minister consider that it is proper for members of parliament who are also members of the legal profession to make representations to him, to the board or to the officials of his department and
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
charge their constituents for this service? My second question is: Would the minister inform the committee whether the lay members of the house are just as effective in making representations to him and will be as effective in making representations to the board we are proposing, or to the officials of the department, as the members of the legal profession in this house? Those are the questions I should like answered.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I think that if a member of the legal profession makes representations in this house he acts as a member of parliament and should not charge anything for the representations he makes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean Marchand: I say that because he is just fulfilling his duty as the representative of his riding.


David Lewis: Or anyone else.


Jean Marchand: Yes, or anyone else.


David Lewis: Even those outside a member's riding.


Jean Marchand: Yes. If a member of the legal profession has to do more than that professionally I presume he is entitled to remuneration for it. I think it is normal for a member of parliament to make representations to the department and if somebody charges for so doing I think it is morally wrong.
The hon. member for Kootenay West has asked me whether non-lawyers are as efficient as lawyers. As far as I am concerned I make no difference between the two, and I know non-lawyers who are much more efficient than lawyers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I listened very intently to what has been said and to the question put to the minister. I think it is most unfair that the record should be left with the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West specifically referring to members of two parties without mentioning anyone else in the house. I think he scrupulously avoided mentioning anyone else, knowing very well that there are others to whom this applies. I also think it reflects upon those who are members of the legal profession if the hon. member does not specifically name these people. If they are not named, a cloud will hang over the heads of all those who are
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board members of parliament and also members of the legal profession. I believe the hon. member should have gone further than he did. Whether or not he did so purposely, what he said will give the public the impression that those engaged in this type of practice exist only in the Liberal and Conservative parties. I do not believe that is right, and it is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Chairman, that is the very reason 1 asked the question I did, to which the hon. member for Kootenay West did not reply although he said he would. I am sure everybody in the house agrees with what the hon. member and the minister said. I certainly do. We are all for it. But as the hon. member for Ontario has just said, it is most unfair and is just not right to leave this matter in the air. The hon. member for Kootenay West should name the men he has in mind. If he would like the names of members of other parties, perhaps that information can be supplied to him.


Michael Starr: Supply it. Let us get the record straight.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I think the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Ontario is well founded. But if I heard the hon. member for Kootenay West aright, he was speaking of members of past parliaments and was not making reference to present members.


Mr. Ricard:: Let him give the information.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The hon. member for Kootenay West can speak for himself, of course. I presume that the remarks made by the hon. member for Ontario and the hon. member for Norfolk were intended to indicate that the hon. member for Kootenay West had referred to members of certain other parties and had not referred to members of this party. I understood that the hon. member for Kootenay West was referring to members of past parliaments. It is a simple fact, which can be readily verified, that only very recently have there been members of the legal profession in the party to which I belong. I refer, of course, to members of my party who have become members of parliament. As far as I am concerned I am not claiming any particular virtues in regard to moral behaviour for the party to which I belong. If the remarks of the
13386	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board hon. member for Kootenay West are considered in that context, which is what I understood-


An hon. Member:: Let him speak for himself.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: -I think it will be realized that he was merely making a statement in accordance with what I consider to be the unfortunate circumstance that in previous years this party has not been fortunate enough to have elected to the House of Commons people who belong to the legal profession. Those of us who do not belong to that profession are occasionally inclined to make references that its members may not like. Nevertheless most of us recognize that it has in its ranks some of the finest citizens of Canada.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the questions that were raised by the hon. member for Norfolk and the hon. member for Ontario with regard to members of our party who are members of the legal profession I would say that I do not have any direct evidence at the present time. I forgot to mention that when I was discussing this question two or three years ago I also discussed it with the Minister of Public Works who assured me that his practice was identical with that followed by the Leader of the official Opposition. I am mentioning this now because I overlooked it in speaking previously. I am raising this matter because I think it is one of serious concern. It does concern many Canadians and I have had much correspondence on it. I trust that even this limited debate will prevent any member of the house who is a member of the legal profession charging anyone for representation in the future.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member a question. A moment ago he mentioned that the Leader of the official Opposition had made a rule in this respect and that the same rule had been made by a minister on the government side. Can he say whether the same rule was made by the leader of his party?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have no knowledge of that, Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. member for Ontario is enjoying himself at the present time.


Michael Starr: Answer the question.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have not had any formal caucus ruling on this point. However, the hon.

DEBATES	February 23. 1967
member for Ontario misunderstood me. The Leader of the official Opposition told me that he informed all his law partners at the time he was elected that they were not to deal with any matter within the jurisdiction of the federal government or any agency thereof because he was elected for that purpose and it was his duty to do it without fee. I raised this matter because I hoped it would cause hon. members on all sides of the house to consider it and to make certain that we all comply with what has become a tradition in the mother of parliaments.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, may I now answer the hon. member for Carleton? According to the information I have the reference to the Immigration Act in clause 22 is necessary in order to ensure that the functions of the special inquiry officer under the act are not affected.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 23 to 27 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 28.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, there is a new clause which I should like to introduce at this stage. It is numbered clause 28. The reason for introducing this clause is that in clause 30 we have established that an inquiry officer can reopen an inquiry and modify his first judgment. A consequential amendment was therefore necessary. It reads as follows:
That Bill C-220 be amended by renumbering clauses 28 to 33 as clauses 29 to 34, respectively and by adding the following clause immediately after clause 27:
"28. Section 29 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
29. An inquiry may be reopened by a Special Inquiry Officer for the hearing and receiving of any additional evidence or testimony and a Special Inquiry Officer has authority, after hearing such additional evidence or testimony, to confirm, amend or reverse the decision previously rendered."


John Whitney Pickersgill: I so move.


Jean Marchand: If the board has the authority to order this inquiry, then of course the special inquiry officer should have the authority to carry on the inquiry under the conditions which are set down.


Richard Albert Bell: As I understand it, all the amendment does is to strike out the words in the existing section 29: "or by order of the minister or by majority decision of an immigration appeal board". The minister nods his head so I believe the answer is yes.
February 23, 1967	COMMONS


Gilles Grégoire: This concerns another clause, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment (Mr. Pickersgill) agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
On clause 31-Regulations respecting procedure, duties, etc.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, what
is the change here?


David Lewis: To take out the words "and appeals".


Jean Marchand: The purpose of the clause is to extend the provision of the Immigration Act respecting proof of documents arising out of proceedings under the immigration appeal board.


Richard Albert Bell: I think the minister is on the wrong clause. I believe the hon. member for York South was correct that all this new clause does is to strike out the words "and appeals".


David Lewis: There is a special appeal tribunal which will make the rules and therefore the board no longer keeps the authority to make rules with regard to appeals. I believe that is all the section does.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 32 to 34 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 1-Short title.
Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, 1 understand the minister intends to stand this clause. If so, I hope he will not inhibit any of his colleagues, in particular the hon. member for Parkdale who is one of his distinguished supporters, who holds the office of parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and who has taken the lead in Montreal today in an attack on this legislation. I hope the minister will feel that the hon. member for Parkdale should have complete freedom of action to open up any of the clauses of the bill in order to try to improve the legislation. It is clear that a considerable number of members on the opposite side are totally dissatisfied with the legislation as it is. I am sure the minister with the flexibility he has shown, will give them ample opportunity to deal with the matter.
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Jean Marchand: We will have to wait to hear what the hon. member for Parkdale has to say.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As the senior minister in the house at the present time, notwithstanding the entirely commendable effort of the hon. member for Carleton to suggest there is something appropriate about the procedure we have agreed to adopt and with which I reluctantly agreed, I must say I hope this will never be cited as a precedent. I do not see how our parliamentary system is going to work at all if committees of the house are going to tell the house, or even the committee of the whole, how it should carry on its procedures. Without reflecting in any way upon the committee, because it is sitting and we know we cannot talk about its proceedings, I want to say that I believe all of us agree that parliament is paramount over its own committees. It is not suitable for a committee, no matter how important what it is doing may be, to delay the business of the committee of the whole or of the house. I am not speaking as a member of the government but I am speaking as one of the senior members of this house in point of years if not in point of years of service.
When I say I think the minister was right in accepting the blandishments of the hon. member for Carleton, I would point out also that I do not believe the hon. member for Carleton believes in his heart any more than I do that this is a proper procedure. I think we ought to have it on the record that we do *not want this to happen again.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the Acting Prime Minister-


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not the Acting Prime Minister.


Richard Albert Bell: Is the Minister of Transport indicating that the hon. member for Parkdale is in the doghouse?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I am merely suggesting that at times all of us in this house share in doing things and we do not always think of all their implications when we do them. I do not believe I have ever been very sensitive when my conduct has been criticized. I do not believe I have ever hesitated to apologize to the house when I thought I had done anything that was in any way a reflection upon the house. Therefore I do not
13388	COMMONS
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board believe we should fail to note circumstances that are not good for parliament, regardless of what their origin may be. I have the highest respect for the hon. member for Parkdale as a member of the house and as a member of a group of people who have contributed many of the immigrants to this country who are among our best citizens. I do not think anyone misunderstands the exceptional interest of the hon. member for Parkdale in this measure. However, this does not alter the principle, and it was with the principle only that I was dealing.


Mr. Orlikow:: Nobody could disagree with the remarks of the Minister of Transport in respect of the primacy of this house to transact the business of the house. I am speaking as a member of the house who happens to be a member of the joint committee which is dealing with the white paper on immigration.
I could not go to Montreal today because of other business. However, I believe the difficulty in which we are has arisen as a result of the lack of co-ordination of the business of the house and the business of the committee.
After all, the members of the special joint committee dealing with the white paper on immigration are from all the parties and they are the members most interested in the question of immigration. I know that in our party my colleague the member for Greenwood and I generally lead any discussion having to do with immigration, and we are on that committee. The same situation applies to members of the official opposition and the government. Some time ago the committee made arrangements to hear members of important national organizations in Montreal.
It is true that the terms of reference of that committee do not cover this bill. They are looking into the white paper on immigration. As I said a few minutes ago, many of the members of the committee are the members who are most interested in the whole question of immigration. For the house to be dealing with an important bill on immigration when the members of the house who are on that committee dealing with another aspect of immigration are absent seems to me to be somewhat ludicrous. I do not question the remarks of the Minister of Transport or the principle he has enunciated-


George James McIlraith: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? Having said what he has said, could he explain to the house how it happens that the committee went away knowing this bill was coming

DEBATES	February 23, 1967
before the house and, by coincidence, on the day it was expected it would come before the house?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, the house leader should really ask that question of the chairman of the committee who, of course, is a member of his own party. As an ordinary member of that committee I think I could give him the explanation he would get. The decision to hold the meeting in Toronto last week and in Montreal this week was made a month ago. Arrangements were made to hear important national organizations. These organizations were informed that if they wanted to make representations they could make them in Toronto last week. I am speaking from memory, but I believe the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and a number of other organizations were heard in Toronto. I understand, for example, that the Canadian Jewish Congress made representations in Montreal yesterday. These arrangements were made months ago, so if there is a conflict the conflict is over there.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit another question? Would he mind clearing up for us the proposition he now appears to have in mind, that national organizations making representations to committees of parliament should do so in places other than the capital of the country?


David Orlikow: This was a committee decision, Mr. Chairman. The agricultural committee has been making a tour from Vancouver to Ottawa and the joint committee on consumer affairs has split into two sections for hearings outside Ottawa. This is a decision of which the government approved, I am sure, or these committees would not be travelling. I see the Minister of Transport shaking his head. I do not know how a committee gets the money to pay for its travel if the government does not approve. This is what has happened, and if the government did not approve of these hearings being held outside of Ottawa, as they have been, they would not have been held. I do not think any member of the house would question the Minister of Transport's statement that the business of the house is decided by the House of Commons. It was unfortunate that there was a foul-up in communication between the government house leader and the committees. This is a situation about which we are all sorry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not want to quarrel with the hon. gentleman about the particular
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
instance. I think I was very careful not to talk about particular instances beyond saying that I thought my hon. friend, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, had been wise to accede to this particular request on this occasion. I was seeking to underline that in acceding on this particular occasion I hoped we would do everything we could to avoid repetition. I know that once something has happened someone will always cite it as a precedent. I was trying to make this look as bad a precedent as any precedent ever was. I do not think, if we ever start acknowledging the primacy of standing or select committees over the primacy of the house and the committee of the whole, that we shall have parliamentary government very much longer. I am old fashioned enough to think that our system of parliamentary government is better than any other system that has yet been devised anywhere, including some countries whose governments in many ways I admire very much. [DOT] (4:40 p.m.)	.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We all think that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to say two brief words. First, I wish to support the procedural position the Minister of Transport has taken. It is a clear rule of this house that our committees can deal only with matters the house refers to them. We are not bound, therefore, to be influenced by obiter dicta of committees pronounced on things we did not refer to them. The Minister of Transport is perfectly right in suggesting that this is not the kind of procedure that should be followed in future.
The other thing I wish to say is that the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North is one this parliament will have to think about much more-the efficient, useful functioning of our committees. I was glad to hear from the house leader today that the personnel of the standing committee on procedure are to be appointed shortly and that the committee will begin work. He is aware, as I am, of the abortive efforts in the past to arrange for committee meetings when the house is not sitting. We must come to some kind of arrangement of that sort so that the committees may do a proper job on matters we refer to them. I suggest that today's incident illustrates that.
At the risk of being told that I am trying to be on both sides of the fence, let me say that I think this is an unfortunate precedent. We must not follow it. I also think we must look hard at the arrangements we make for our committees. The more this parliament goes on the more the work load piles up for us and
Establishment of Immigration Appeal Board the more important it becomes for us to use our committees. Let us use them, not abuse them.


Richard Albert Bell: I agree with the inference to be drawn from the question posed by the Minister of Public Works, but this matter ought to have been raised, I suggest, when the motion for concurrence in the committee's report was before the house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There probably will not be any such motion.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this is a fine opportunity, I think, to deal precisely with the efficiency of committees, as so appropriately pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Committees are not always efficient precisely because they are not given the necessary leeway to become efficient. I would have another example to show that the case confronting us today is not the only one, but happens regularly.
For instance, while the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs was sitting, the debate was going on in the House of Commons on the mini-budget, that was brought forward recently. Thus, the members most interested in financial matters had to attend the committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and, at the same time, they had to sit in the House of Commons, where the mini-budget was being dealt with.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, this is a fine opportunity, since the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) know that I have asked for several years, in this house, for a complete reform of everything that concerns the creation of committees, so as to enable them to work more efficiently.
An example: when the committee meets in Montreal to study the white paper on immigration-the minister himself does not have the gift of ubiquity, and even if one credits him with all sorts of talents he cannot be in two places at once-the minister is not present at the meeting in Montreal. In fact, he has to be in the house to pilot another immigration bill.
Therefore, I think it would be useful for the ministers to note that committee work is not always done efficiently, because the rules concerning committees are not designed to allow them to work efficiently and to the full.

February 23, 1987
Research
I think this example is an excellent illustration of an idea I expressed some years ago, which is that if committee work is to proceed efficiently, committee rules must be reformed to allow them to reach a high level of performance and efficiency.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, although I may seem to be presumptuous in rising to take part in this discussion, I feel we should immediately proceed with the amendment to this bill because it hardly seems proper for the committees to communicate with the house through press and radio. It seems to me that they should normally communicate through reports duly tabled during regular sittings of the house and that this is the proper way officially to inform the house of their decisions.
Second, Mr. Chairman, I am given to understand that this is a kind of pilot bill and that we are experimenting and we will probably be given the opportunity to revise it or to amend it next year. I am also given to understand that there will be, in the near future, a more comprehensive piece of legislation covering the whole immigration field.
In this case, I believe we should not delay, although I understand that the minister has given his consent which indicates considerable goodwill on his part, for his position will be greatly admired. For the reasons I have mentioned, I feel we should proceed immediately.


The Deputy Chairman:: Is it the wish of the committee to adjourn discussion on clause 1?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill C-252, to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act-Mr. Drury-Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Definitions.
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I point out to the committee that long statements have already been made, first at the resolution stage and subsequently on second reading. The bill
[Mr. Gregoire.)
was referred to the committee on industry, research and energy development and in the course of two very long and productive sessions it was studies in extenso and some amendments were made. The legislation we now have before us represents the original bill as amended by the committee and I hope that in its present form it will commend itself to hon. members for expeditious treatment.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the minister's remarks. As he has said, the committee on industry, research and energy development spent a considerable time on this bill. Although I am a member of that committee I was unfortunately unable to attend the meetings because I am chairman of another committee. There are one or two questions which I should like to ask at this time.
The first is: If a United States subsidiary operating in Canada is given a grant under this legislation is there anything in the bill which would prevent such subsidiary using the money to develop a product which could be made by the head office of the company in the United States and sold in the United States or possibly in some other country? I want to be assured that Canada does not propose to subsidize research by a subsidiary of a United States company with the parent company then proceeding to manufacture the product of that research in the United States. I believe we should insist, if possible, that in cases in which we make a grant for the development of a product that product will be manufactured here in Canada.
I realize we are dealing with a complicated bill and that many of its clauses deal with difficult questions. One of the major problems lies in reaching a good definition of what actually constitutes research. I believe that the benefits proposed by this legislation are already available under section 72 of the Income Tax Act. It seems to me that here we are proposing to make grants available before the research has been done. Under the Income Tax Act allowances made for research are made only after the research has been completed. In this case we are putting the cart before the horse and making grants before we know that the research will be carried out successfully and what results will be forthcoming. For this reason I am not at all sure I agree with the bill in its present form.
Another question comes to mind. Will these grants be made available to government corporations? Will concerns such as Polymer or
February 23, 1967

Atomic Energy of Canada be eligible for giants under this measure? I should also like to know what is intended in cases which are the reverse of those I outlined a few moments ago. What will happen when a grant is made to a Canadian company which has a subsidiary in the United States? Would the subsidiary of the Canadian company qualify for a grant under this bill?
I think the motive behind this legislation is good. The idea is not new but it is being put forward in a new way. We are proceeding along lines different from those indicated in section 72 of the Income Tax Act. These questions may be answered as we study the bill clause by clause but the minister may wish to make a few general remarks before we leave clause 2 to assure the Canadian taxpayers and the committee that we are putting this money to proper use, that it will be well spent and spent for the purpose for which it is intended.
Personally, I would prefer that these grants be made only after the research and development work has been done. In my view this would be preferable to making a grant and saying: Here is your money, see what you can do with it. Suppose the money is spent without satisfactory results. The project fades away. Is there any provision for the return of whatever was provided by way of a grant?


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree that the question of scientific research with which the bill before us purports to deal is one which concerns not only members of the House of Commons but the scientific community and industry as a whole throughout Canada. We are concerned because we know that Canada has been doing so little in this field compared with other modern industrialized countries.
Speaking on this subject about two weeks ago I compared government expeditures in the field of scientific research in Canada with government expenditures of other countries in this area. I pointed out that the United States government was spending approximately 3 per cent of its gross national product on research and development while Canada was spending less than 1 per cent. In his introductory remarks while moving the second reading of the bill the minister confirmed what I said with respect to government expenditures on research and told the house that the same disparity was to be found in expenditures by the private sector. On
Research
December 20 as reported at page 11433 of Hansard, the minister said:
Looking at the structure of our over-all scientific activity we find that industry performed only 36 per cent of the national total as contrasted with 63 per cent for Britain and 74 per cent in the United States. This anomaly in allocation of effort would indicate that insufficient emphasis is being placed on the practical exploitation of science and technology.
A little later he stated:
It would appear that a target almost three times the current figure is required to bring Canada more nearly into line with comparable industrialized countries. The attainment of this target within a reasonable period of time would require a virtual doubling of the previous long-term growth rate for industrial research and development.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
It seems to me, to judge from the speeches the minister has made on this subject, that he has formed an opinion as to the reasons for Canada's backwardness so far as expenditure on research is concerned. The reasons are not hard to find. So far as industry is concerned our present situation has arisen because such a large percentage of Canadian industry is owned by foreign investors, many of them in the United States, who tend, as they have tended in the past, to do their research at their head offices or in research centres outside this country. This is true not only of United States companies but of international concerns such as Shell Oil. It is also caused by the fact that companies and industries in Canada which are not foreign owned tend to be smaller and do not have the necessary financial resources to expand scientific and research development.
Since 1962 we have had a whole series of programs. We have had financial incentives and we have had tax rebates. We have had proposals for direct grants. It seems to me the reason we have had changes almost every year is simply that we have not given the basic and detailed consideration to the problem which is required. Also, we have not evolved a program which will meet our needs. I am not suggesting that such a program can be evolved in one week, one month or one year. What I am suggesting is that it is necessary to consult with the best brains and with those persons who are most highly trained in this field. We need to evolve a program so that in five or ten years' time we will attain the goal we want to attain. It seems to me that we will not achieve this aim if we have changes from year to year. I suggest that if we are to have changes from year to year we will inhibit the desire and the ability of Canadian industries to become involved in research.

February 23, 1967
Research
In making some notes along this line I came across an article which I presume the minister must have seen. It appeared in yesterday's Globe and Mail. The title of the article is "Is Ottawa Helping Or Hindering Development? A Wrench In the Research Machinery". The article goes into detail. I do not intend to read all of it into the record. It is based on an interview with Dr. J. J. Green, director of research for Litton System (Canada) Limited. I should like to read a couple of paragraphs which I think summarize fairly what Dr. Green thinks of this bill. He says:
The Canadian government appears to be taking away with one hand tax incentives to industry that it has been giving with the other.
Dr. Greene say that Bill C-252, now before the House of Commons, will reduce the tax advantage certain companies gained through research and development in previous years.
The article continues:
This means that the rewards are only for companies whose yearly expenditures are rising steeply, Dr. Green says. A company doing a fair level of research and development that did not increase in any one year would get nothing.
Dr. Green said in an interview, that schemes to encourage research in industry that have been initiated by the government during the past three or four years have had good response. Despite the encouraging results, the government proposes to change the basis on which these incentives rest.
The courrent interpretation of the proposed regulations is that they will be less favourable than the old regulations to industries that originally expanded their research and development capabilities-the very companies the government was first trying to encourage. Dr. Green says.
I could go on and on but I think the first two paragraphs indicate the fact that here is a research director of a company who feels that industrial research is being inhibited by the changes from year to year so that no company can make long-term plans. The minister and the country have had a great deal of advice about what we ought to do. I have here a report of a speech made by Dr. J. H. Chapman, deputy superintendent of the federal defence research telecommunications establishment, in which he said:
-the United States has been able to establish an industry of discovery because it has developed close links between the industrial and academic communities.
The articles goes on to say that the United States is calling for a national science policy. This was in May of 1965. The Ontario Research Foundation more than a year ago recommended the sitting up of a series of co-operative institutes to serve various fields

of industry under the over-all direction of a crown corporation. They point out the need for high level co-ordination to prevent wasteful duplication of effort among the associations. They propose that the cost of these institutes be split 50-50 between government and industry. They point out that Canada has limited funds to expend on industrial technology and every dollar must count.
The Ontario Research Foundation suggests that the associations themselves should recognize that Canada already has adequate facilities for basic research and should concentrate on meeting the need for ways of applying new knowledge more effectively. At the University of British Columbia they are discussing the setting up of research parks. The Financial Post of March 19 reports as follows:
Although primarily sponsored by the provincial government, the B.C. Research Council has been supported financially by many private corporations which have called upon it to carry out scientific and engineering projects which they were unable to do themselves.
The point I am endeavouring to make is that I believe this bill does not go far enough. The fact that the minister is bringing in another proposal this year, as he did last year and the year before, is an indication that the minister and the government still have not worked out a long-range policy. I suggest to the minister that the government must play a much more important role than it has in the past. It must not only encourage industries to do more research and development than they have in the past but also must work out methods, through financial incentives and tax rebates, to help them do this.
I should like to see the industries do research in co-operation with the National Research Council and other government agencies. Industry should also consult with the universities which finally, after many years, are now beginning to do a great deal more research and a great deal more training in the post-graduate field than they ever have done in the past. I believe the government should try to work out programs under which small businesses and industries can do research. They simply do not have the funds to do it on their own. They should be encouraged to work together in fields of research in which they have common purposes.
What I am trying to say is that there is a need to rationalize the research which is being done by industry and that the government should devise methods, which I do not see in this bill, to bring together individual companies in a particular industry so that they can
February 23, 1967

all benefit by doing research together. If they benefit, certainly the country as a whole will benefit. When I read this bill and compare it with the study done for the Economic Council in December, 1965, entitled "Program To Encourage Research And Development In Canadian Industry", it seems fairly obvious to me that the general principles worked out in that study have not been adopted by the government and certainly are not included in the provisions of the bill which the minister is proposing today.


Mr. Mackasey:: Mr. Chairman, my contribution to this debate will be a very limited one, particularly since the hon. member for Winnipeg North has made most of the points I would have made. As he said, there is not sufficient research being done in Canada, particularly by companies which for the most part are controlled outside the country. I should like to commend the minister for bringing forward Bill No. C-252, because it differs in at least one fundamental aspect from the present legislation. I believe this point was touched on briefly by the hon. member for Wellington South. In the past young firms, particularly those not in a profitable position or not making any real profit after paying taxes, have not benefited from the tax incentive that has been available to other firms doing research. It is quite conceivable that during the years 1962 to 1966 certain companies engaged in research were unable to take advantage of the financial incentives of the government in view of the fact that they were operating at a loss.
I believe that Bill No. C-252, by substituting direct grants for tax rebates, makes it possible for the Minister of Industry to help finance industrial research in those companies which are still in their formative years and are not yet in a position to generate a net profit. I believe that in this particular instance the language in the bill is an improvement. I am sure the minister will wish to elaborate a little further on this subject.
There is, of course, another feature in this bill to which I believe the hon. member for Wellington South referred. I have only had an opportunity to read the bill once and I must admit that I did not attend the hearings of the committee. I understand, however, that the bill is designed to prod big business particularly to accelerate the research it is doing and invest more money in research.
There has been a tendency on the part of big companies to carry on year in and year out at the same fixed rate of investment in
Research
research, secure in the knowledge that a good portion of the cost of this research would be borne by the federal government. In the existing regulations there is very little if any incentive, other than the incentive, of course, to discover something of importance, to induce these companies to accelerate or increase their annual expenditure in the field of research. I imagine that this bill may go a long way toward encouraging companies to plan long-range research programs on an accelerated basis and with increased expenditures from year to year so that they make take full advantage of the provisions of this legislation.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Like the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I have been a member of the food and drug committee for three and a half years. In that committee I have tried to be as objective as possible. It is a very difficult committee for a layman. But I have been made aware, by practically every brief presented to that committee by well established firms and relatively new and smaller firms, of the amount of research that these firms are undertaking and indeed must undertake if, according to their briefs, they are to continue to be vigorous and profitable. In other words, the drug industry claims I think with a certain amount of justification, that their industry perhaps more than any other depends upon the fruits of basic and applied research.
I think this industry can make a very excellent case for the amount of money it spends on an international level. But as I listened to their witnesses and experts and read their briefs I found they made only a very pathetic case for the amount of money they spend in this country on applied and basic research. If time permitted and if that committee was not in the midst of preparing its report to the house, I would discuss this in a little more depth. For instance, I would have pointed out to hon. members the experience in Australia where, because of incentives and inducements by the government of that country, the pharmaceutical industry has become a very vigorous exporter of products made there. By reason of the fact that we are situated so close to the United States I suppose the subsidiaries in this country of such companies have not found it profitable to carry out as much research or manufacturing here as I think they should have done. I can only hope that the Minister of Industry will take note of my remarks and see whether in the future some way cannot be found to make

February 23, 1967
Research
I hope through incentives and inducements but if necessary through punitive action, these international firms in the pharmaceutical industry, spend a little more of their research dollars right here in Canada.
When they present the balance sheets of their operations in this country they include a very healthy expenditure under the term "research and development." If the Canadian taxpayer is expected to pay for that research and development every time he swallows an aspirin or other pill, I think a little more of the research should be carried out in this country. Some of these industries, particularly in the pharmaceutical field, have been good, corporate Canadian citizens, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce likes to evaluate a company. They hire thousands of employees and spend millions of dollars in this country on wages and materials. But I think they are too prone to depend upon research facilities situated in such countries as Switzerland, the United States, England and Germany.
In this modern world where communications are so sophisticated I do not think there is any reason why research, particularly in the pharmaceutical industry, should not become more diversified and originate in Canada. There are exceptions, of course. I would not want to resume my seat and leave the impression that I have been making a blanket condemnation of the pharmaceutical industry in so far as research is concerned because there are firms such as Ayerst McKenna and Harrison Ltd. which are undertaking research in this country. This firm is carrying out research in the Montreal area for its parent company. I believe there are companies located in Sheridan Park, Toronto, which are increasing their research facilities. I understand that the pharmaceutical industry in Toronto and Montreal in particular is investing more money in research facilities and therefore helping to prevent the brain drain with which we are very familiar.
Nevertheless, Mr. Minister, I am one who is not satisfied with the amount of research carried out in this country by this industry. I have never believed in curing a nose-bleed by cutting off one's head, and I do not believe this is the approach that should be taken with respect to the pharmaceutical industry. I doubt that there is time to discuss the industry in general, but I think it should be made aware of the fact that while we recognize the necessity of international research and realize that in most instances the average Canadian is able to take advantage of the fruits of

international research, more research should be carried out in Canada.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We realize also that in most instances the average Canadian is able to take advantage of the fruits of international research by the constant introduction of new medicines and new drugs. Nevertheless we deserve from these firms a greater share of their research dollar, particularly in view of the fact that a respectable amount of money goes out of this country to subsidize and help support international research facilities which exist in Pearl River, in the United States and at Basle, Switzerland.
There is a particular clause in this bill on which I will say a few words. It helps to achieve what I think is a desirable aim, namely, that the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps more than any other industry because it is so research-oriented, should do much more to spend in Canada some of the dollars which Canadian taxpayers pay for its products.
I want to commend the minister for the real increase in the field of research since 1962. I have never had an opportunity to speak in the House of Commons on legislation sponsored by the present Minister of Industry, perhaps because of the fact that for geographical reasons my interests are not centred on the auto pact but on other matters. However, I have been rather impressed by the performance of the minister who, perhaps more than any other minister of the government, has shown a willingness to try out new ideas and approaches. I could mention many of them but the chairman might rule me out of order. One of them is the auto pact which, although controversial, was an attempt to introduce a new approach to a vexing problem. Although it has resulted in much labour unrest and disruption it has also resulted in a significant sum of money, $200 million, accruing to this country. I am rather pleased that research should fall into the orbit of the Minister of Industry who, ever since I have been here, has shown no reluctance to try out new ways and means. This should be the new spirit in Canada because, after all, we are an extremely young nation.
I would have liked to spend a little time talking about the "brain drain", as we like to call it.
I should also like to commend to hon. members an article in today's Globe and Mail
February 23, 1967

entitled "New Grants For University Research" because I think the program is ancillary to the present bill. The article refers to a new basic approach by the National Research Council and it is a very encouraging ancillary measure in respect of the bill before us. In other words, it seems that through the National Research Council grants will be made available for university research.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg North said, this has been an area in which action has been woefully lacking. The percentage of our gross national product devoted to basic and applied research in no way compares with that of countries like the United States and Australia, but I think that we are at least moving in the right direction. I read in the Financial Post that at present the rate of acceleration is such that by 1970-71 we will have reached the desirable goal set by the Economic Council and will be in line with other affluent nations.
In this connection I commend to the attention of hon. members a paper written by Roger Gaudry, rector of the University of Montreal, concerning the brain drain. I think it is an important paper because it erases some of the misconceptions under which many of us have laboured about the well known fact that so many of our well trained scientists and researchers leave Canada to go to the United States. According to Dr. Gaudry, based on information that he has acquired from Washington, from the Department of Labour here in Ottawa and from other available statistics, from 1956 to 1961 Canada lost to the United States an average of 212 scientists and 1,028 engineers per year, making a total average of 1,240 trained personnel. Expressed as a ratio of the 1959 output of science and engineering graduates, Canada lost on the average 12.5 per cent of its output of scientists and-this is staggering- 48 per cent of its output of engineers.
However, to my surprise, and perhaps to the surprise of Dr. Gaudry, because of immigration from Europe we have actually ended up with an over-all gain. According to recent figures that have been made available to me by the research division of the Department of Labour many Canadian trained personnel are now coming back to Canada. However, Dr. Gaudry made the very valid point that this is no reason to feel complacent. We should not be complacent about the fact that we are training university students who leave Canada to go to the United States, simply because we offset this loss by replacing them 23033-847
Research
with new Canadians. This type of compensation is bound to dry up as opportunities for work arise in the countries from which these people come and as their governments emphasize the necessity of keeping their professional people at home.
However, Dr. Gaudry made another valid point, namely, that the only way in which Canada can remain prosperous, in spite of the fact that it is situated next to an industrial giant, is to have something a little different to sell. We cannot succeed on the basis of price alone. We must have something uniquely Canadian to sell in the field of industry, and the best way to ensure that our products are wanted throughout the world and to make certain that our exports increase from year to year is to increase our support of industrial research so that we can come up with products that are really Canadian and not facsimiles of something developed in the United States or Great Britain.
I am sure that because of the abundance of our national resources there are particular areas to which our research should be directed. Our patent system will have a lot to do with it, and I would take a dim view of anyone who would want to destroy that system.
I agree with previous speakers that perhaps this bill is not the end to all our problems in the field of research, but I think it is a very helpful step forward because it forces the large companies not only to maintain their present research facilities but to spend more money from year to year thus accelerating their efforts. Second, through the medium of this bill some financial compensation will now be made available to those firms which, for taxation reasons, in previous years were unable to take advantage of the tax incentives.
I once again ask the Minister of Industry to take note of my remarks, and I also hope that the pharmaceutical industry will do so. While I commend it for what it has already done in the field of research I hope it will continue and increase its efforts. I have received a note from the other side of the house which says, "Sit down, you are holding up the bill." On the strength of that premise I will sit down in the hope that we will proceed with the committee stage.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
1339G
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1967
Research
On clause 3-Scientific research and development grant authorized.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Alfred Dryden Hales: This clause deals with whether or not the grants given are likely to result in benefits to Canada. Does the minister feel that this wording gives proper protection to the Canadian taxpayer who will be putting up these grants? In referring to the minister the clause reads in part as follows:
-and such other information as the minister considers relevant, is satisfied that the expenditure was made in respect of scientific research and development that is likely to result in benefit to Canada if it is successful.
Here we have ministerial discretion. He decides whether the expenditure is going to result in benefit to Canada. The hon. member for Verdun referred to pharmaceutical companies. Suppose one of these companies receives a grant to develop a certain kind of drug. Suppose the Canadian branch of the company develops the drug but it is then decided that it would be cheaper to manufacture it in the United States.
What about a situation where we have free trade? Suppose General Motors of Oshawa received a grant to do some scientific research. Having developed the research to a point where it was successful, it could decide to manufacture the product in the United States and ship it back into Canada duty free. Does the minister not feel that this provision is too wide and that there should be some reference to the fact that products resulting from the grants must be manufactured in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, this subject was discussed at some length in the committee. I am sorry the hon. member for Wellington South did not have the opportunity of being there. The object of this bill is to encourage industrial research in Canada in the expectation and hope it will improve Canadian industrial technology and consequently raise the standard of living. We specify in the bill that in order to qualify for a grant the applicant must have carried out research in Canada. The grants are payable only in retrospect, that is, after the research has been carried out and some auditing has been done of the quantum of research. In addition, before the grant is paid there will be insistence vis-a-vis the grantee that the grantee is free to exploit the outcome of the research, if it is successful, in Canada.
[Mr. Mackasey.l
I do not believe one can have a bill such as this, designed to encourage research, and state in advance in relation to a program that may take five years to bring to fruition that whatever the result of this research may be it will be exploited exclusively in Canada or that if a product is the outcome it will be manufactured in Canada. It may be uneconomic to manufacture in Canada by reason of the scale of production, technological difficulties, lack of proper machinery and so on. This would mean that one would be discouraging or closing off the advancement of a number of avenues for research in Canada which may otherwise be attractive. Consequently you would be doing what the hon. member for Winnipeg North mentioned, taking away with one hand what you are giving with another.
We make provision in the bill for the assurance that the grantee is not inhibited by law, by corporate agreement or by corporate policy from exploiting the results of the research in Canada. Indeed, if he is free to do so and it is economic to exploit the research in Canada, it is obviously in his interests to exploit it in Canada. We expect this to follow as a consequence. If it is uneconomic to exploit the research in Canada, it does not make any general sense to insist that uneconomic things be done in this country merely for the sake of having them done in the country.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I agree with the minister that the provision of grants for research in Canada would help prevent the drain of research people from our country. However, I feel that the grants provision should dovetail with a provision that the product resulting from the research should be manufactured in Canada. Does the minister deny that General Motors could conduct research in one of its Canadian plants, produce a product, and then manufacture it in the United States and ship it back to Canada duty free? Does the minister agree this could actually happen?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I should make a distinction between research and development. Since the hon. member is talking about research, I might refer him to page 401 of the evidence of the standing committee on industry, research and energy development. There is an indication there that the definition of research adopted by the O.E.C.D. will be the general basis of the definition of research which we will employ in Canada in deciding what research would qualify for grants.
There is a second stage of exploiting research, namely, the development of products
February 23, 1967

or processes. In respect of this part of the operation the federal government provides another program called the program for the advancement of industrial technology in Canada. This particular program is related to the production of specific products and financial assistance or incentives are provided only to the manufacturer who manufactures in Canada. If a manufacturer wishes to develop a product, assistance will be available if he agrees to manufacture in Canada.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Going back to a previous suggestion; to make a good deal of research does not lead to any precise or identifiable product, it is difficult, therefore, to say in advance, we will assist you in doing research provided you undertake in advance to manufacture in Canada any of the products arising from this research. Let me take an instance analogous to the one mentioned by my hon. friend. Let us say that Canadian General Electric out of its research operations developed an engine which it would manufacture in the United States and bring back to Canada. If as a consequence of research in Canada by Canadian General Electric in the field of gas turbine engines it became possible to manufacture very large gas turbine engines more successfully and more cheaply than had hitherto been the case, it would not make much economic sense to insist that Canadian General Electric manufacture these engines in Canada rather than elsewhere because we have not the capacity, the technology nor the market to sustain the production of very large gas turbine engines.
If Canadian General Electric knew in advance that the outcome of all the research it did would be available only and exclusively for exploitation in Canada this would, as I think the hon. member would agree, inhibit it from doing a great deal of research it might otherwise be prepared to do in this country. It would prefer not to have the restrictions and inhibitions of the Canadian environment. It would be better if it could do research work, which it would be free to exploit anywhere, in the United States rather than Canada.


David Orlikow: I want to deal precisely with the question of research and where that research is done. The minister has made a valid point when he says it might not be practical to insist that the product developed in Canada as a result of this type of research program must be produced in Canada. It may be, as the minister says, that the scale of sales in Canada would be too small. There might not 23033-8471
Research
be a market. If the product were produced in the United States under licence there would be a market and the venture would be profitable.
In our group we are concerned about the principle that grants or tax concessions made by the government to companies for research be only for research done in Canada. In clause 3, subclause 1, line 33 of the original bill it was spelled out that the expenditure should be in Canada. I do not know what discussion there was in the committee but in the amended bill we are considering the words "in Canada" have been taken out.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Might I answer the question? The hon. gentleman referred to clause 2-


David Orlikow: No.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Subclause 3(c) of clause 2?


David Orlikow: No.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is the clause defining expenditures which qualify, and the words "in Canada" appear in line 27.


David Orlikow: Mr. Chairman, I am rising at the request of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo South, who was on the committee and attended the meetings. He is not satisfied that the bill makes crystal clear that the research must be done in Canada. He has asked me to move an amendment. I move:
That subclause (1) of clause 3 be amended by inserting therein in line 33 immediately after the word "expenditures" the words "in Canada".
It may be, as the minister says, that this is covered in other clauses but my colleague feels that this matter should be spelled out clearly in this subclause. The purpose of the amendment is to make clear that the research the government supports is research done in Canada. The amendment restores the words which were in the clause when the bill was before us on first reading.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I suggest that this amendment does no harm but it is redundant and repetitive and quite unnecessary. Clause 3(1) refers to "expenditures on scientific research and development in a fiscal period." There is no geographic connotation in that clause. If the hon. member will refer to clause 2 (3) (c) he will see the definition of expenditures qualifying for scientific research and development. It is made quite clear that reference in this

February 23, 1967
Research
bill to expenditures on or for scientific research and development includes only expenditures incurred for and wholly attributable to the prosecution of or the provision of facilities for the prosecution of scientific research and development in Canada. Whenever in the bill there is reference to expenditures for scientific research and development, those references mean only research carried on in Canada. To repeat "expenditures on scientific research and development in Canada" in the following clause is quite unnecessary. I have asked the officials of the Department of Justice about this and they would prefer not to clutter the statute with redundancies.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I am puzzled about the point the minister has been making in regard to the wording of subclause 1 of clause 3. Some of the clauses in the reprinted bill, as reported by the standing committee, differ from the original bill. The explanatory note in the reprinted version says that the amendments made by the committee are marked with a line. In the light of what the minister has said I wonder how the change in subclause 1 was made? That subclause is not marked as having been dealt with in the standing committee. Was this correction made by the minister or by the law officers? How did this change come about? How did the deletion of the words "in Canada" take place?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If the hon. gentlemen will refer to the minutes of the committee proceedings he will see the discussion on this point and the adoption by the committee of this particular amendment. I suggest that perhaps the printers have failed to sideline subclause 1. That is the only omission.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I think we would be agreeable if the minister could assure the committee that grants will not be given for research done outside Canada. Does this wording assure the committee that no grants will be made for research outside Canada?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can give an unequivocal assurance that no grants will be made in respect of research carried on outside Canada. There is one qualification, and this is an area which may be in doubt. The point was raised in the committee. It concerns research carried out on the high seas. It is unlikely that any transaction will take place or that any expenditures would be made on the high seas, but it might be said that expenditures incurred in a Canadian ship on the high seas would not be expenditures incurred on research in

Canada within the strict reading of that phrase. But I can give an assurance hat no grants will be made in respect of research carried on in any other national territory.


David Orlikow: In the light of the assurance given by the minister I am prepared to withdraw my amendment.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With particular reference to clause 3, subclause 2 I should like an assurance from the minister on a particular point. I refer to the proviso that no expenditure shall qualify unless the minister is satisfied that the scientific research and development in respect of which the expenditure is made is likely to result in benefit to Canada if it is successful. Will this cover research for purposes likely to improve the welfare of the community as a whole or will the research be restricted solely to increased productivity in the material field? For example, does this "benefit to Canada" phrase cover applications which have to do with research in the field of control and elimination of air pollution, water pollution and soil pollution? I mention these three fields specifically because, as the minister will probably recall, an amendment was made to the Income Tax Act to provide for incentives to corporations to undertake expenditure on water pollution control. But no provision was made for similar incentives to deal with air pollution and soil pollution. Is the phrase "benefit to Canada" broad enough to include this ancillary research which might not be regarded by industry as increasing the volume of goods produced?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Research work in order to qualify, need not be related to a particular commercial product or process. Indeed, by definition research frequently cannot be so related. If the hon. member will refer to O.E.C.D. definition of research he will see that the kind of research to which he has referred would qualify for a grant.


Alfred Dryden Hales: When a grant is made, who decides whether it is likely to result in benefit to Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As the hon. gentleman can read here, it is the minister. In practice the Department of Industry will lay down certain rules to determine benefit, the most important of which will be that the company undertaking the research and applying for the grant shall be free to exploit in Canada the results or the fruits of their particular research.
February 23, 1967


Alfred Dryden Hales: I will not move an amendment to this clause but I wish to raise most strenuous objection to it on the ground, first, that there is too much ministerial discretion written into it. I think this is the sloppiest drafting we have seen in any act and I feel also that there is nothing here to cover the point I raised previously. We are making research grants to Canadian companies or to United States subsidiaries in Canada to develop products which may not be made in Canada. I still believe w^ should stipulate that grants should be made only in cases where the product would be manufactured here in Canada. Despite what the minister has said I still think there are enough firms in Canada able to make use of all the research money available and which would be ready to meet this condition. As I say, I wish to record my objection to this clause though I do not propose to hold up the passage of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 4-Amount of grant.
David Orlikow: I had intended to move the same kind of amendment to clause 4, subclauses 1 and 2, to restore the words "in Canada" which were in the original draft of the bill. If the minister would give the same assurance as he gave earlier that the research referred to in these subclauses must be carried out in Canada I would be perfectly willing to forgo moving the amendment.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I can give that assurance, Mr. Chairman.


David Orlikow: I am sorry. I misplaced one of my notes. I wanted to add a new subclause to clause 4. I do not intend to make a long speech about it. I should like to move the following amendment:
That clause 4 be amended by adding thereto a new subsection (5) as follows:
(5) Where the research is done for or on behalf of the applicant by an approved association, university, college, research institute or other similar institution, the phrase "25 per cent" where it appears in subsections (1) and (2) shall be read as "50 per cent".
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I think the purpose of this bill is quite clear. As I indicated in my remarks on clause 2, the feeling of our group is that because of the organization of industry in this country and the number of branch plants in important sections of our economy we are not likely to get from industries the kind of research all of us would like to have. Therefore, in order
Royal Assent
that small industries may be able to participate and do their share we propose that they be encouraged to do so by subcontracting research they cannot do themselves to one of the institutions I have mentioned, a research institute, a university and so on. This is the purpose of the amendment.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. It being six o'clock and in order that the house may proceed to private members' business I do now leave the chair.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, February 23, 1967
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Robert Taschereau, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 23rd February, at 6.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to provisional
standing order 39A it is my duty to inform the house that the questions to be considered at the adjournment tonight are as follows: The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brew-in), External Affairs-Portugal-reported intention to exile political prisoners; the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier),- Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Program entitled "Tirez au clair"-Protest against the actions of the director; the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir), Canadian National Railways-North Sydney, N.S.-Possible discontinuance of express and freight operations.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Jim McNulty (Lincoln) moved: that the subject matter of Bill No. C-192, to amend the Criminal Code (Destruction of Criminal Records) be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 23, 1967
Motions for Papers
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, papers; private bills and public bills.


James Carroll Patrick McNulty: Mr. Speaker, by consent may we stand notices of motions Nos. 145, 137, 128 and 200 and take notice of motion No. 201?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Barnett:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all notes and other communications exchanged between Canada and the United States of America since the enactment by parliament on July 16, 1964, of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act having to do with the issuance by the Governor in Council of one or more lists of geographical co-ordinates of points from which base lines may be determined in accordance with the provisions of the act.
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this motion is one that has held the attention of members from coastal constituencies and others for some years now, and in fact interest in our territorial sea predates by many years the enactment of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. The motion before us seeks to have certain papers tabled and made public, namely, documents, letters, etc., exchange between the Canadian government and the government of the United States with regard to Canada taking action through the governor in council under law of this parliament to establish geographical co-ordinates from which straight base lines would be drawn and from which would be measured our territorial sea and o ur fishing zones.
I realize that on a motion such as this we are normally confined to discussing the possibility and necessity or otherwise of tabling the documents and it is not a motion dealing with the substance of the matter at all. But in this instance I think to reason for the production of the documents one must touch upon the subject matter and relate some historical events in so far as the subject matter is concerned. This was recognized by

the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and Mr. Speaker on the last day this motion was debated. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said in part, as reported on page 12860 of Hansard for February 9 last:
However, I understand the interest of the two hon. gentlemen and other members of this house in the substance of the proposition, and therefore 1 have not raised a point of order.
This means that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, knowledgeable as he is about the intimate workings of parliament, realized the necessity of discussing the substance of this matter. When I say that Mr. Speaker at least, condoned that approach I mean he did so by not intervening and by recognizing the overriding importance of being able to look at the substance of the question in order to reason whether the documents should be produced. This is what I hope to do this evening.
My colleague the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), as a member from British Columbia and one who is very interested in this and many other fishing matters, gave a very laudable and commendable outline of the subject in his opening remarks. The hon. member pointed out very clearly the degree to which the government has been negligent in this matter in not carrying out the responsibilities which parliament gave it. I should like to quote further the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs because I think they reveal an attitude which should not have as much scope and force in the determinations of government as it has. As reported at page 12860 of Hansard the minister said:
I do understand, however, the impatience of hon. gentlemen.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs was referring to impatience over the delay in the governor in council proclaiming the geographical co-ordinates. He said:
I share that impatience, and so does the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud) who has toiled arduously during the past two and a half years in an effort to implement the full provisions of the bill.
I do not have the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act before me but in it the responsibility is given to the governor in council to proclaim either in whole or in part the geographical co-ordinates for Canada. We wonder why there has been such arduous toil for two and a half years in order to implement these geographical co-ordinates. What are the difficulties? I can understand that
February 23, 1967

there might be some difficulties when a number of other countries have historic fishing rights and make claim to the right to fish within the 12-mile limit, whether it be one that follows the convolutions of the coast or a straight line. I can understand the difficulties when there are a number of nations making this claim, because this is the case on the Atlantic coast. I can understand those difficulties when there is a desire by the government of Canada to have those nations phase out their historic fishing rights so that after a certain period of time they will no longer have the right to fish within the 12-mile zone.
In respect of the Atlantic coast there may be an argument for such protraction because there are a number of countries concerned in this question, some of whom have treaty fishing rights. That matter was dealt with at length by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni before the committee and in this house on a previous occasion. Portugal, France, Spain, Denmark and other countries, I believe, claim these historic fishing rights.
My concern here is with the substance of this matter in so far as the Pacific coast is concerned. On the Pacific coast only one country claims to have historic fishing rights within the 12-mile limit and the area about which the Fisheries Association, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and everybody in the fishing industry in British Columbia has a unanimous opinion. Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance fall within the area they claim should be inside the straight base lines. Only one country, the United States, claims historic fishing rights within this area.
The United States' claims have been recognized because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), at the meeting in Hyannis Port with the late President Kennedy to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred in his remarks of February 9, guaranteed to President Kennedy that he need have no fear about the historic fishing rights of the United States within the area which would be encompassed by our 12-mile fishing zone. The Prime Minister said we would recognize those rights. This information was given to the Senate, to the house and to the committee on marine and fisheries which was then considering the territorial sea and fishing zones bill. This information was given to us on a number of occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Robichaud). These ministers said that Canada would recognize that historic fishery,
Motions for Papers
namely, the bottom fishery of United States fishermen in the area which would be within the 12-mile fishing zone as contemplated.
This being the case, and there being no indication that the government intended to ask the United States to phase out its fishing operation in that area off the Pacific coast-in other words, we would recognize in perpetuity their historic right-what is the subject of negotiations with the United States in this respect? The only thing which can be the subject of negotiations is the location of the geographical co-ordinates. The responsibility for setting those geographical co-ordinates has been given to the governor in council, but we are presumably negotiating the location of the straight base lines and the geographical co-ordinates with the United States of America. I submit it is none of the blessed business of the United States of America where those straight base fines and geographical co-ordinates are drawn. It is a determination that Canada, as a sovereign state unto itself, should make.
When the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was progressing through the house there were great declarations that Canada would be firm and resolute and would make a unilateral declaration and decision on this matter. It was said that it was commendable for a country such as Canada to be able to make this sort of declaration in the face of world conditions at that time, a time before the United States decided to take action with respect to the 12-mile limit and a time of conflict between Iceland and Great Britain on the subject of fishing zones and the territorial sea.
In the fight of those firm determinations and expressions by the government, we cannot help but wonder what is the purpose of the negotiations. I think that without even seeing the correspondence we must come to the conclusion that the United States government wants these geographic co-ordinates and straight base fines to be as close as possible to the mainland of the west coast of Canada, as opposed to the position which the government took before the marine and fisheries committee, namely, that the geographical co-ordinates would be as far seaward as possible. In other words, it was said that the geographical co-ordinates would follow the brief presented to the committee by the Fisheries Association.
The brief of that association had in it a map or chart of the west coast and the Atlantic coast. The chart of the west coast indicated that the geographical co-ordinates and the straight base fines would proceed from a

February 23, 1967
Motions for Papers
point on the international boundary in Juan de Fuca Strait, off the west coast of Vancouver Island, in a direct line from the northwestern tip of Vancouver Island near Cape Scott, or the outermost island off Cape Scott, thence to the southwestern tip of the Queen Charlotte Islands close to Cape St. James, thence along the west coast of the Queen Charlotte Islands to Langara or North Island and up to the international boundary which runs between British Columbia and Alaska. The Canadian government endorsed the position taken in the brief of the Fisheries Association. These geographical coordinates represented the hope of everyone involved in the fishing industry in British Columbia. It was the expectation of members of the committee that these geographical coordinates would be implemented.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
We were told that there- was no intention of asking the United States to phase out the historic fishery in that area. It was only intended to make the United States subject to our various fishery regulations, and what could be more reasonable than that? If we are only negotiating with the United States the application of Canadian fishery regulations to foreign fishing vessels operating inside our territorial sea and fishing zones, then I submit this should not be the subject of negotiations. If that is so, then what is being negotiated? Obviously what is being discussed is how far toward our coast the United States authorities can drive our own base lines. I submit that what the United States wants to do, for military or pseudo-military reasons or just to satisfy its massive ego, is to have as much of Queen Charlotte Sound, Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance as possible, an area Which I thought was Canadian territory dating as far back as 1903 when a British tribunal made the decision regarding the boundary between British Columbia and Alaska.
I suggest that what the United States wants to do is to have as much as possible of what we now consider to be Canadian waters, even though we have no base lines drawn to enclose them, declared as international waters and outside of our fishery zone. I hope that the government is not negotiating away the concept and understanding which we have had on the west coast for many years about what are considered to be Canadian waters. It seems to me that the only prospect in sight is an adulteration or dilution of the position which the government took so firmly before

the fisheries committee when the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act was being considered. We attempted in that committee to spell out the geographic co-ordinates on the west coast and to have the base lines follow the position agreed to by everyone in the fishing industry in British Columbia, namely, to include those waters I have just mentioned, Hecate Strait, Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound. However, we relented in the committee on the basis of the understanding given by responsible ministers of the crown that there would be no delay in proclaiming the geographic co-ordinates.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said unequivocally, without hesitation and in clear language

I must say that is a remarkable distinction for him-that the geographic co-ordinates would be declared before the end of 1964. With that understanding members of the committee accepted the government's word and relented. Subsequently we have found that for the last two and a half or three years there has been a continuous exchange of proposals. Two or three times the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries, whichever one happened to deal with the subject at the time, said that they were awaiting the reaction of the United States government to proposals made by the Canadian government. It is preposterous that such a situation should arise, that when the parliament of Canada has given to the governor in council authority to declare geographic co-ordinates and the governor in council has agreed to make proposals about where those co-ordinates should be the government should be making proposals to a foreign country about what we should do within our own territory. In other words, we are permitting the United States of America to decide where those geographic co-ordinates are going to be and what will be the fishing zones and the territorial sea of Canada on the west coast. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said with respect to this matter-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. I regret very much that I must interrupt the hon. member for Skeena as his time has expired. Does he have the consent of hon. members to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: I do not desire to do so particularly because there is so much to say about this subject that I could very easily be
February 23, 1967

bemoaning the delay and procrastination when His Excellency's messenger knocks at the door. However, so as not to trespass upon the good grace of the house I will end with a quotation dealing with the relationship between Canada and the United States. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said the following, as recorded on page 12861 of Hansard:
I believe that we should hear from the United States within the course of the next few days. When this reply reaches us we will have a better appreciation of when we can begin to establish co-ordinates and straight base lines, and when we may take other steps to further the objective we have in mind.
In other words, the minister said that everything rests upon the United States. This has been the answer we have received every time questions have been put to cabinet ministers. Time after time we have been told that all we have to do is to wait for the United States to reply to us, wait for them to tell us what they want, wait for them to agree or disagree with something we have proposed, and then we will know what to do. This is what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said just two weeks ago. It is a regrettable state of affairs when we allow a foreign country, which we have already agreed will have a perpetual right to fish within our fishing zones, to proceed to decide where our geographic co-ordinates will be. I would have thought this would be something that our government would be proud to do in its own sovereign way and declare for the benefit of all Canadians without having to report to the United States government and ask that government to decide what the Canadian government will do.


Mr. Richard Cashin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to listen to the remarks of the hon. members for Co-mox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) and Skeena (Mr. Howard). The hon. member for Skeena pointed out to us that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) recognized the particular interest of certain hon. members in discussing the subject matter of the 12-mile limit. However, at the same time the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out quite clearly to the house that the issue before us at this time is not whether the government has made progress in these negotiations but whether the house should be given the documents which have been exchanged between the government of Canada 23033-848
Motions for Papers
and other governments. While I well recognize the concern and the impatience of the hon. member in this matter, I think it must be clearly understood that the course of action which is advocated in this motion is one that would be most irresponsible and in fact would not be in keeping with the custom so far as such documents are concerned.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
On the first day this matter was discussed, February 9, the minister cited a number of cases which pointed out the absolute necessity of the government not making public the documents in question. To do so, without consulting the other countries involved, would be an irresponsible act and, in fact, would serve no useful purpose. Before dealing with the motion before the house at this time, namely whether or not these documents should be produced, I want to reiterate that ample evidence has already been introduced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), and supported in a very reasonable speech by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), that this would be an unjustifiable course of action.
I should like to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) as recorded on page 12856 of Hansard:
While there may be times when I would readily agree that the kind of documents asked for in this motion could be properly considered as privileged and it might not be in the public interest to table them in the house, nevertheless I feel that under the particular set of circumstances prevailing in this case the general rule has in effect ceased to apply.
The hon. member and his colleagues have failed this afternoon to produce one iota of evidence to support in a technical or legal way the reasoning behind that statement. They have pointed out that there was impatience as a result of the fact that the ultimate question has not been resolved. I would not want to say this until I have had an opportunity of rereading the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), but I think he might have been a little unfair to the minister when he said he was impatient. In my opinion, impatience is a state of mind, which I think is legitimate and understandable, when one is confronted with a difficult or complex situation. Then, I think one is apt to experience impatience. However, if one has that experience that does not mean the impatience is the result of procrastination or undue delay.

February 23, 1967
Motions for Papers
I should like to point out to the house that, notwithstanding the vital interest of the two members in question as well as my own interest and concern in this matter, I think they are being somewhat unrealistic. The hon. member for Skeena has said, if I recall correctly, that it was difficult for him to understand the situation. I find it difficult myself, having regard for the intellect and knowledge of the hon. member for Skeena, to comprehend the difficulties which he is having. I feel it should be apparent to him, perhaps more so than to many other members because of his experience in the house and his knowledge of this field, that when a country is engaged in international negotiations, by their very nature those negotiations are more intricate and more sensitive than any other negotiations that may take place within the country itself.
I think many of us have experienced impatience with things on the domestic scene; yet we know that government, in dealing with domestic problems, has a variety of matters to take into consideration such as legal claims or alleged legal claims or the interests of various groups. There is often a period of time between the date when the government decides on a particular course of action and the date when the desirable end is achieved. If these difficulties are experienced in the domestic field, then I think that is ample prima facie evidence that generally when one is engaged in international negotiations there is more involved. It may well be that in most cases such negotiations are more difficult and the desirable end is more difficult to achieve.
I should like to point out further to both hon. members that since 1964 when the legislation to which they have referred was introduced, we have, as a country, made progress in dealing with this matter. The hon. gentleman has talked at great length about the area that he represents. He made no mention in his speech of the effect that the legislation has had to date on foreign fleets. I am referring specifically to the operations of the Russians on the Atlantic coast, with which I am more familiar than I am with the Pacific coast.
Progress has been made, too, with regard to the Norwegian sealing operation in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the two and a half years which have passed since the introduction of this legislation, there have been other developments which, while they might not appear at this time to be of great consequence, are of such an order as to suggest to me that they are of significance. I refer to the action which

the United States has taken with regard to this problem, something which they did not seem either anxious or willing to do a few years ago.
There is one other matter I should like to mention while dealing with the over-all problem. I believe the hon. member for Skeena is off the point when he suggests that this is a matter of a foreign country dictating to another country the extent to which that country may exercise its jurisdiction. I remind the hon. member again that in the field of international relations Canada has certain responsibilities with regard to the International Court. I should like to think that the successful solution of this problem will be one that will stand the test of international law.
Again I say that all of us, particularly those of us who represent coastal regions, are very anxious that at the earliest possible date as much progress as is possible should be made. At the same time, while expressing this understandable impatience, we ought to keep what is involved in a proper perspective. I do feel the hon. member for Skeena is somewhat over-simplifying the problem. Again I say that while the hon. member who introduced this motion may have wished to express his views on the merits of the question, nevertheless he could not have been acting in a completely responsible manner because if the motion were to carry I suggest we would tend to jeopardize rather than assist the negotia-toins in which our constituents have such a great interest.
In view of the precedents cited by the minister, I believe all hon. members will recognize that it would be an unwise and irresponsible course of action to adopt this motion. I feel we have no course but to defeat it, and in so defeating it I think we will be rendering more assistance to the cause of achieving a desirable solution to this problem than if we were to carry the motion.
* (6:40 p.m.)


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed by the eloquence of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) who can speak on labour, northern affairs, Indian affairs and the problems of fishing rights with equal facility. I do not say that sarcastically. I commend the hon. member. I can only commend to new members of the house that they take advantage of the private members hour to the same extent that the hon. member for Skeena through the years has taken
February 23, 1967

advantage of it, that they speak as he speaks, and develop that eloquence which I envy.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Flattery will get you nowhere.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that you were mesmerized by the hon. members' eloquence. Your Honour permitted the debate to centre around the 12-mile limit and the treaty-why the treaty has not been finalized and why co-ordinates have not been established-rather than on the issue of whether certain documents exchanged between the United States and Canada should be made available to members of the house. I suspect Your Honour was indulgent because there has not been enough opportunity to discuss this important piece of legislation in the last year or so.
Coming from the city of Verdun, I confess that my interest is not as devoted or developed as is the interest of the hon. member for Skeena. If I were to take a point 12 miles from my home area I might wind up somewhere in the next county.
Periodically the problem arises in this house as to the desirability of producing certain papers. There is a lack of clear definition of what is a privileged document and what is not. The process of having members of the house decide whether a document is or is not privileged by majority is not democratic, it seems to me. A forward step we ought to take would be to devise definite rules to guide members of the House of Commons as to what documents are or are not privileged. To decide whether documents should be made public by the process of one party out voting the other parties, is undemocratic, I suspect. If we look at it closely, I suspect we shall see that this further restricts the freedom of the average member in the house. I know the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) shares my viewpoint.
As I have said before, we can only go by precedent in deciding whether a document is privileged. There are no guide lines. This matter ought to concern the special committee that will look into procedural reform. Other countries have specific norms to follow, and it is time we had some rule of thumb to decide these matters other than a straight majority of the house, or a vote.
In England there is a tendency to consider all documents privileged. With few exceptions, in England they consider all documents privileged. Hon. members interested in doing a little research in the library will find that in 23033-8481
Motions for Papers
England privileged documents cover almost all documents issued by the government. They include for instance transactions between the government and private contractors. As an observer of the English scene it seems to me that the concept of privilege over there restricts the basic rights of the average member of parliament. The rights of the average citizen are indirectly infringed upon. At the other extreme we have the situation in Sweden.
The time has come, I think, for a special committee of the house objectively to look at the question of documents. That committee could investigate the English and Swedish systems, to see which one is better suited to our parliamentary system.
In passing may I say that our committees have given backbenchers an opportunity to take an active part in affairs. The committees system has removed much of the frustration which might otherwise ensue. One effect of the committees, it seems to me, has been to curtail the importance and prestige of the House of Commons. In the final analysis the House of Commons protects us against an undemocratic system of government. We must find ways and means of best using the committee system and at the same time restoring and maintaining the image of the House of Commons. A committee ought to settle this question about documents, and make some recommendations. Those problems ought to be decided objectively, and the minority parties not constantly penalized for their lack of members. However, I do not say that that is the situation here.
I expect most hon. members know about the Swedish system in which, contrary to the English system, with a few exceptions, all documents are considered public. In the main cities of Sweden the government has set up reading rooms in city halls and libraries, where many documents considered privileged in Canada, and certainly in England, are available to the public. It is not uncommon to see in the evening, or on a Saturday morning, political science students, newspapermen, interested senior citizens and others poring over those documents in reading rooms scattered throughout Sweden. Every person can be familiar with the every day workings of his government or parliament. This does much to alleviate the burden on an ombudsman in a country where this enlightened official operates.
The solution to our difficulties in Canada must lie, I think, in a happy medium. In a

February 23, 1967
Motions for Papers
country such as ours, where the press in unbridled, there are occasions when, if documents were made available weekly or daily, too much might be read into them, particularly by people who are subjective and not objective.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
I know this would not be the case in this instance. I am sure that is these documents were made available to the hon. member for Skeena and his partner they would be put to very objective use-the hon. members are really interested in finding out why it should take so much time to finalize a piece of legislation which is highly desirable to the fishing industry of this country.
I must not be tempted to enter upon a discussion as to the desirability of a 12-mile limit and the desirability of a speedy settlement with the United States. I must stick to the issue before us, which is whether or not these documents exchanged between the Canadian government and the United States are to be considered as privileged. I will admit I have no means of knowing whether or not they are privileged. I must take the word of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) for that. Luckily, my hon. friend has such a wonderful reputation in all parts of the house that I am sure all hon. members will accept such an assurance from him without question.
My impression is that the hon. members who raised this matter were interested not so much in the production of these papers as they were in the opportunity to discuss this whole subject at length, in an effort to ascertain why a solution to this vexing problem has not so far been reached.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would the hon. member for Verdun permit a question? He has just referred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in glowing terms and of course he sits considerably closer to that hon. gentleman than I do. Perhaps he could tell us whether the minister has heard from the United States on this subject matter as he suggested when he spoke on February 9. He said, then, that he expected to do so within the next few days.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. member is an extremely experienced politician. He knows that I am only a babe in the woods in that sphere of activity. But even I know better than to speculate on whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs did have the meetings to which he referred on February 9. If the minister said that such a meeting would

take place, I am sure he did so with the best of intentions.
The hon. member who asked this question might not be as close to the minister as I am but he has sat in this house for a considerable time and he knows that my hon. friend has a great reputation for conciseness and veracity, and if he made such a statement I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Albemi would be the last to question it.
I do know that the hon. member for Co-mox-Alberni, with the basic honesty which usually permeates everything he says in this house, began his own comments on this subject, as reported at page 12858 of Hansard, by saying that in normal circumstances the papers to which he is referring would have to be considered privileged. Then he went on to say that because of abnormal and particular circumstances-1	am paraphrasing his
words-an exception should be made in this case.
Obviously the hon. member admits that in normal circumstances these papers are privileged. As I listened to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) I failed to find anything in his eloquent remarks which persuaded me that there was anything extraordinary about this particular situation which would make the tabling of these papers desirable.
The question before us is not whether the co-ordinates should have been determined three months, six months or a year ago. This is a complex matter, as the former minister of fisheries rightly pointed out during his participation in the debate not long ago. The real question is whether or not these papers are privileged. I can only repeat that in the opinion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs they are privileged documents. They embody correspondence between the governments of two countries and I am afraid that even in the most ideal of circumstances the Secretary of State for External Affairs would have to obtain permission from the United States before there could be any question of tabling them.
I believe both members of the New Democratic Party have done service to the house by emphasizing once again the lack of guidance from which the house suffers when approaching such problems. I repeat my desire that you in your wisdom, Mr. Speaker, might recommend to the appropriate authorities that at the first opportunity in the next session a special committee be set up to go into the whole question of the production of papers, so that we might have guide lines as
February 23, 1987



to what should be considered privileged and what should not.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call it seven o'clock, and in view of the fact that a message will be coming shortly from another place, I might perhaps underline the principle to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred. When we have before the house a motion for the production of papers the one thing upon which the debate should be based in the feasibility or otherwise of producing these documents. A great deal of latitude has been allowed in this connection because of the special circumstances to which the hon. member for Skeena has referred-circumstances which were mentioned also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But I would remind hon. members that the principle is still there, that we should not stray from it, and the fact that much of this debate has taken place on the substance of the motion rather than on the feasibility of producing the documents in question should not be considered as a precedent for the future.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act respecting employer and employee relations in the Public Service of Canada.
An Act respecting employment in the Public Service of Canada.
Mr. Speaker:: The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. C-252, to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada
Research
and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act-Mr. Drury-Mr. Rin-fret in the chair.
Maurice Rinfret: Order. House again in committee of the Whole to consider Bill C-252. It being after seven o'clock, the sitting will be suspended until eight o'clock.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that we take the full hour and return at 8.15.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Rinfret: The sitting will be suspended until 8.15.



SITTING SUSPENDED


[Stage Direction]
The committee resumed at 8.15 p.m.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Before the committee suspended its sitting at six o'clock it was discussing clause 4 of the bill to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North moved the following amendment:
That clause 4 be amended by adding thereto a new subsection (5), as follows:
(5) Where the research is done for or on behalf of the applicant by an approved association, university, college, research institute or other similar institution, the phrase "25 per cent" where it appears in subsections (1) and (2) shall be read as "50 per cent".


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I commend the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North in trying to get more research done by research associations, in universities and in similar institutions. However, perhaps there are some objections to the technique that he has proposed to bring this about. I might say in the first place that federal government support for research in universities and other non-profit organizations is provided through a number of channels other than this bill. Perhaps the best known one is the National Research Council, and in this connection I will refer the hon. gentleman to the current issue of the Globe and Mail which, at page 25, attempts to summarize the past performance and anticipates the vastly increased performance of the N.R.C. in this matter of support for universities, and a new technique which they are proposing to adopt to achieve this. I think that as a means of

February 23, 1967
Research
providing for increased research efforts in these non-profit organizations such as universities or research institutes the other channels or vehicles are more satisfactory than this bill.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Second, the Department of Industry has recently inaugurated a new program which is called, support of industrial research institutes. We are now starting in two universities, as an initial step, to organize non-profit research institutes which will encourage and engage in self-sustaining research with industry, with a view both to bringing the industrial community closer to the university in the research field and of providing a focus for having research done with facilities which, as the hon. gentleman pointed out, small businesses cannot afford.
It would be the hope that by meeting some elements of the administrative costs of these new institutes there could be a considerable increase in industrial research done by universities in universities, with facilities of a calibre which small businesses themselves could not afford. I think probably this is a better approach than the one suggested in this amendment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I do think that there would be a danger, were this amendment adopted, that large corporations now engaged in research on their own account with their own facilities, would quite obviously quickly organize this same research under an institute of some description and thereby double the federal grant without changing the quantum or nature of the research at all. I do not believe one would want to encourage this kind of manoeuvre.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I have some doubt myself about whether the amendment, proposing as it does to increase substantially the charge on the exchequer, raising it to 50 per cent of the expenditures from the proposed 25 per cent, is in order.


David Orlikow: I will not make any comment on the last suggestion of the minister. The Chair will, of course, have to decide whether or not my amendment is in order.
With reference to the earlier comments of the minister, however, I should like to say it is not my thought or that of my colleague, the hon. member for Waterloo South, who could not be here today but who drafted the substance of this amendment, that this amendment could be the only method the government would use to encourage industry, small

and large, to place research in the various universities. I am happy to have the report of the minister on the steps that have been taken to this end. I have said, as have many others much more competent and knowledgeable than I am, that research, both basic and applied in government, in universities and in private industry, is woefully inadequate.
I suggest to the minister that if my amendment is in order, then it is one more tool which the government can use to encourage industry to aid more research. I do not accept the minister's suggestion that industry could use this method to set up some kind of institute which would do the research an industry has been doing, just because the industry could get increased grants or tax concessions. As I understand it, no university will work with an industry in research if the industry requires that the results of the research shall be the property of the industry.
I am told for example that International Nickel has a very fine program of post-graduate research fellowships under which there is written into the details of the agreement that any discoveries which are made as a result of the research done by these research fellows shall not be the property of the company, but shall accrue to the university. I do not believe therefore that factor is an important one. Unless you rule that my amendment is not in order, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to the minister that what my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo South has drafted will be one more useful tool for the government to help scientific research.


Mr. Kindi:: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions. In so far as scientific research is concerned, I should like him to indicate whether he is thinking of fundamental research or applied research. There is a vast difference between these two. I am very much of the opinion that in so far as industry in this country is concerned, applied research is the most important-that is, taking the end product of scientific research and applying it to industry. The minister is laughing, but I want him to explain this.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am very sorry the hon. member for Macleod was not in the house before the dinner hour when this question was examined. I refer him to page 401 of the evidence of the committee, to which I referred before, for the definition of research. I will not take the time to read it again.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Can the minister tell me where on this page that is explained?
February 23, 1967


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Page 401, line 7, beginning with the words: "That is correct. The current definition of the O.E.C.D. is ..." and continuing for the balance of the page.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Let me ask the minister this: Will he elaborate briefly on the (b) clause which says applied research is work undertaken for the advancement of scientific knowledge with a specific practical application in view. Now, is the thought to have all scientific research oriented to later application or will it be fundamental research pushing back the frontiers of knowledge. I think that is covered in paragraph (a).
To what extent are you going to place the emphasis on each type of research? Is it going to be left entirely to industry to come along and take the end products of research, as has been the case over the years, or has the minister in mind making research applicable to industry? Will it be left to industrialists to take the end products of research and apply them to industry, as is done now?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The purpose of the bill is to allow the greatest freedom possible to corporations to increase their research activities, whether in the field of fundamental research, applied research, or development, as defined on the page to which we refer. The decision as to emphasis, direction and quantum will remain entirely with the applicant for a grant, the corporation doing the research, without direction from the government.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question?


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Chairman, did not the Minister of Industry raise a point of order?


Herman Maxwell Batten: I do not know whether the Minister of Industry a few minutes ago raised a point of order, but I was under the impression that he mentioned that there were financial implications in the amendment. Having read the resolution preceding the bill I now read from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 250, subclause 3, beginning half way down the paragraph:
The constitutional principle which vests in the Crown the sole responsibility of incurring national expenditure forbids an increase by the Commons of a sum demanded on behalf of the Crown for the service of the state. This principle, however, is apparently disregarded when the recommendation of the Crown is given to a resolution empowering the expenditure of public money which, framed in general terms, places no limitation on the amount of expenditure to be authorized by the resolution.
Research
I shall also read subparagraph (4):
(4) The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor General's recommendation upon which a Committee of the Whole is set up cannot be amended. Amendments will only be in order if they fall within the terms of the resolution. The procedure in committee on those resolutions follows in principle the procedure of the Committee of Supply, and amendments are out of order if they are proposed with a view to substituting an alternative scheme to that proposed with the royal recommendation.
Citation 251, subclause 1, reads as follows:
It may happen that the resolution sanctions some expenditure without fixing the maximum amount to be spent. If, for instance, the resolution recommends that adequate salaries be paid a newly constituted body and the amounts of the salaries are fixed in the bill based on that resolution, the committee on the bill has the right to increase those amounts, because, in doing so, it does not go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation.
It is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, from the financial point of view, does not go beyond the scope of the resolution.
Is the committee ready for the question?
Amendment (Mr. Orlikow) negatived: yeas, 22; nays, 27.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I declare the amendment lost.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 11 agreed to.
On clause 12-Minister may obtain and give advice.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wish to ask the minister one or two questions on clause 12. So far as I can discover this clause did not receive detailed attention in committee. It has to do with the minister seeking advice from different quarters. The only department specifically mentioned is, under paragraph (b), the Department of Trade and Commerce, from which advice may be sought for a specific purpose.
As I understand subclause (a), it gives the minister power to seek advice whether any specific activity constitutes scientific research and development. I presume that research and development will have to come within the meaning of the definition the minister gave earlier. He spoke of standards, and of what constituted research, and said that the standing committee had outlined these matters. The minister also spoke about these matters for the benefit of the hon. member for Macleod.

February 23, 1967
Research
My question is this: Why is the minister limited to the Department of Trade and Commerce in seeking advice whether research and development from any activity is likely to result and be of benefit to Canada? My question in part arises from a question I asked before the dinner recess. Advice whether research into the fields of air, water and soil pollution are likely to be of benefit to Canada is not, I suggest, obtainable particularly from the Department of Trade and Commerce. Usually when questions about pollution arise in the house, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources answers. That minister has said that he is prepared to answer questions with respect to water pollution. Recently he suggested that matters dealing with air pollution lie within the purview of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


William Heward Grafftey: Where is the question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Really, my question is on this point: Why is this advice, whether research is likely to result in benefit, limited to that obtainable from the Department of Trade and Commerce? Would the minister not consider the advisability of expanding this provision, so that other departments might be mentioned? Other departments have particular interests in questions as to whether certain fields of research can be to the benefit of Canada. What is the minister's reaction to this suggestion?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the observation just made is a very useful one. The drafting of 12 (b) indicates clearly the significance which would be given to the phrase "of benefit to Canada". The test which was to be applied and which had to be satisfied was that the corporations engaging in research would be free from any kind of external inhibition against exploiting the research in Canada, whether this be an economic law of another jurisdiction outside Canada, whether it be an agreement between the company doing research in Canada and some foreign company outside Canada, or whether it be a matter of corporate policy in a parent-subsidiary relationship. It was felt that the best source of this information would be the Department of Trade and Commerce.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) do not limit the minister in his search for advice to those particular departments. The object of the provision is rather to place an obligation upon
[Mr. Bamett.l
those departments to provide advice. They do not limit the minister to those particular sources for the information he may require. If a question should arise as to whether pollution research of a particular nature is likely to be beneficial, there is nothing here to inhibit the seeking of advice from the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources or, indeed, from any other department.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Having heard that explanation from the minister I will not press my suggestion that the clause be amended. Perhaps we might serve notice on him that we shall expect him to seek that advice at appropriate times, and perhaps on some other occasion we may be suggesting to the other ministers whom he has named that they should proffer advice to the Minister of Industry from time to time.


David Lewis: I had intended to raise another question in relation to clause 12. When I originally read it I could not understand why it was there at all. It seemed obvious that one department of government has the duty as well as the right to consult other departments of government. Then I read clause 13 and thought that perhaps those who had drafted the bill had put in clause 12 to make it possible for employees to obtain information in a way which might otherwise not be permitted, and that clause 12 was there to make sense of clause 13. Otherwise I do not see why it should be provided in legislation that the minister may obtain advice from one department or another. Surely, that is understood, and there is no need for legislation to permit him to do so.
Then I read the following clause and it occurred to me that perhaps it was the content of clause 13 which gave those who had drafted this bill reason for inserting clause 12. If this is the case I suggest to the minister that his answer to the question asked by my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni is not adequate. If the minister removes any inhibition about obtaining the information he requires from the departments mentioned in clause 12 he obviously does not remove it with regard to any department which is not mentioned in clause 12. Therefore there is, obviously, sense in what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni said, namely that there are other ministries in possession of advice of value to the minister with regard to whether a particular piece of research is of benefit to Canada, and should not those other ministries also be mentioned
February 23, 1967

in order that the exculpatory clause, if I may use a technical word, clause 13, would apply to those ministries as well as to those mentioned?
If I understand the clauses correctly and if there is this relationship between clauses 12 and 13 the minister might well consider whether he ought not to amend clause 12.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I thank the hon. member for providing that exposition. He is correct in his analysis but I think he has gone slightly awry in his conclusion.


David Lewis: It is better to be half right than not right at all.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It is better than being half pregnant, as they say. The kind of information which is being talked about in clauses 11 and 12 is information which comes under the heading generally of privileged information-it is privileged in relation to income tax matters or commercial security or commercial privacy. The kind of information which one would seek from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in relation, say, to the usefulness of work on pollution would be more in the public domain than would be the information we have in mind here-corporate agreements, income tax returns and that kind of thing. While I do not endorse the adjective "exculpatory", it does impose a special regime on this special type of information and enables it to be transmitted between those concerned without destroying the privilege.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I would be interested to know what the minister has in mind with respect to the use of the recently established Science Council of Canada to influence the general approach to be taken under this bill. Will the council be called upon for advice with regard to the direction to be followed as a result of this legislation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: This is not a bill to launch a government-directed program of research. This is an incentive offered by the government in a purely objective way to encourage a substantial increase in industrial research in Canada. The initiative with respect to the type, amount and location of the research is left entirely to the applicant for a grant. It will not be directed.
As far as the Science Council is concerned, one would hope it would make known to those corporations within its sphere of influence the advantages of the incentives offered
Research
by this bill and perhaps suggest to corporations that they should operate to take advantage of these incentives.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
It is neither the purpose of the bill nor the function of the Department of Industry to indicate to individual corporations the kind of research they should or should not be engaged in as a consequence of this statute.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: If I understand the minister
correctly, he is suggesting that the flow of information would be from the Science Council to industries and that the industries then would approach the government under the terms of this bill for the appropriate assistance which it provides.


Mr. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a further question in connection with subclause (b) of clause 12, where it is stated that the minister may obtain the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. A great many firms are engaged in research into and manufacture of fertilizer, insecticides and so on. Would the Department of Agriculture not be the department which would be contacted when inquiries are required concerning matters of this nature? They have their own research facilities and would know more about this than would the Department of Trade and Commerce. I am wondering also whether fertilizer and insecticide companies, or others engaged in these operations, would be eligible for grants under this legislation. Would they not come under the definition "aiding industrial research"?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: There are several parts to the hon. member's question. First, corporations engaged in the research and production of insecticides, fertilizers and other aids to agriculture would qualify for these incentives. Second, I can assure members of the committee that the Minister of Industry will seek advice wherever it can be best obtained. There is nothing in this clause which inhibits or deters the minister from seeking advice wherever it can be best obtained. As the hon. member for York South pointed out, there were special reasons for naming these departments, and they relate to clause 13. In response to the third question, certainly the advice of the Department of Agriculture would be sought when questions arise in respect of which this department has a particular expertise which is of interest.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have just a couple of questions on this clause. In

February 23, 1987
Research
Kootenay West COMINCO is very interested in research related to the pollution of the Columbia river. There also is an interest in research with regard to the pollution of another river near Kimberley in the riding represented by the hon. member for Kootenay East. If they could prove they were doing something for the general advantage of Canada, would they under this legislation be entitled to a grant for this type of research. Also in my constituency we have a few farm corporations. In some circumstances they have extensive holdings and are doing certain research in respect of fish farming, fur farming on their properties and the provision of humane traps in respect of trapping operations on these properties. If a farm corporation could prove that the work they are undertaking is to the general advantage of the people of Canada, would they come under the terms of this bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the Twin River research on pollution is concerned, the answer is yes. The kind of work COMINCO is doing would qualify. In so far as the incorporated farmers are concerned, it may be a little more complicated. There might be some difficulty in deciding what is research and what is production for profit. I would not attempt to say that one biological process would qualify for a research grant and that another biological process would not. I hope we will have people who understand these things sufficiently to say whether the particular operation or particular things being gone will qualify under this definition of research. In this regard it will not be the Minister of Industry alone who will decide. He will seek the advice both of hon. members and the various departments of government which have special knowledge in this field.


Alfred Dryden Hales: With regard to clause 12(b) the minister stated he would feel free to consult with any department or agency of government. Why then is it necessary to include in clause 12(b) the words "obtain the advice of the Department of Trade and Commerce on whether any particular scientific research and development is likely to result in benefit to Canada"? Why would the Department of Trade and Commerce be the only department that would be asked to say whether it is of benefit to Canada? I am wondering why the words should not be "obtain the advice of any department". Would the minister see fit to change that?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I explained earlier, clauses 11, 12 and 13 really should be read together. The hon. member for Wellington South will note that under clause 13 the information which is obtained as a consequence of being provided under 11 or 12 is privileged. The type of information particularly obtainable from the Department of Trade and Commerce relates to corporate arrangements of an economic character between subsidiaries in Canada and parents abroad, or vice versa. The Department of Trade and Commerce, as I believe the hon. gentleman knows, is charged with administration of guide lines. As a consequence of this, that department is the repository of, and has received from corporations doing business in Canada, a considerable amount of confidential information.
The Department of Trade and Commerce receives this information on the ground that it will not be published. The purpose of clause 12 is to authorize the Department of Trade and Commerce to disclose this privileged information to the Minister of Industry in order that he may be able to make a determination concerning the appropriateness of a grant under this legislation. Clause 13 makes quite clear that such information received by the Minister of Industry is in itself privileged.


[Stage Direction]
Clauses agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
On clause 15-Offences.
David Lewis: 
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should appeal to my colleague, the Solicitor General, who is here. All I can say is that clause 15 represents the gestation of the Department of Justice, for which I must accept responsibility but plead inability to explain it.


David Lewis: It is either a gestation or an abortion.
February 23, 1967


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, would the minister indicate why there is in subclause 3 the time limitation of five years. Were it not for this subclause, what would be the time limit?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I cannot answer that question either. I do not know what the normal rule is. I have rather automatically assumed that this is one of the standard provisions that is written into the penal clauses of every statute.


David Lewis: Is it not six months?


Richard Albert Bell: I think that in the case of a summary conviction the period is a year, but I confess that like my hon. friend from York South I have not been in the criminal courts for a goodly number of years.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Perhaps I may take advice on this matter, Mr. Chairman.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I cannot speak with authority on this matter, but reaching back to my experience in the criminal courts I suggest that in the interests of the accused there should be some limitation in respect of the period during which he may be faced with a charge. In the wisdom of the law officers, five years appeared to be an appropriate time after which one could not be charged with an offence.


Thomas Miller Bell: Perhaps someone in the other place will look at this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-Application of Act.
Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I would like some information from the minister on clause 16. The explanation with regard to this clause probably follows his remarks in connection with clause 12. In the brief presented yesterday to the members of the cabinet by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture-the minister may have been at that meeting -there is the suggestion of a deduction from the farmer of one tenth of one per cent of the final wheat board price for one year, to be used for research into the problems of production, and particularly the utilization of grain. This would include research into new foodstuffs that could be made from grain. Clause 16 provides for the application of the act and says:
This act is applicable to expenditures on scientific research and development-
Research
I emphasize the word "development"
-in any fiscal period of a corporation ending in the calendar year 1966 or any subsequent calendar year.
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stressed that the proposed research would be important for western Canada, which means it would also be very important for all of Canada. I should like to ask the minister whether such a research project would be considered to be within the provisions of this act?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am not sure precisely what is proposed, but I think I can say that research and development of new uses of cereal grain or new products made from cereal grain, that is, made by an incorporated company, should qualify for these grants. This is the type of new venture that the bill is designed to encourage.


James Ernest Pascoe: This brief says:
The fund should be administered by a board of western farm organization representatives.
Would they be considered to be a corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It would depend on how a board of western farm organization representatives organized themselves. A group of farmers is clearly not a corporation. But with the aid of a good lawyer like the hon. member for York South they could incorporate themselves.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Public Service PUBLIC SERVICE

February 23, 1967



AMENDMENT OF VARIOUS ACTS RESPECTING SALARIES OF OFFICIALS

Edgar John Benson: the second reading of Bill No. C-266, to provide for the revision of certain salaries fixed by statute.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us is, I think, largely self-explanatory. Its principal purpose is to bring up to date the salaries of certain officers whose remuneration is fixed by statute and cannot be changed except by legislative action. The last occasion on which the salaries in question were changed was in December, 1963, when a special enactment, chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada 1963, was approved by parliament, covering much the same group of officials as those with whom this present bill is concerned.
The bill now before the house incorporates also one new principle, applicable to some but not all the officers whose salaries will be adjusted by this statute. It seeks the authority of parliament to enable the governor in council to make future salary adjustments of most of the officers covered by this legislation without the requirement of returning to parliament to seek further legislative amendments. Exceptions are made in the case of three officials who bear a special relationship to parliament, the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Representation Commissioner. In these three cases the special relationship which exists between these three officers and parliament suggests that changes in their rate of remuneration should continue to be made only with the express legislative authority of parliament.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
In all other cases, however, except that of the Commissioner General for Canadian government participation in Expo '67-which post will disappear at the end of the World Fair or shortly after-there would appear to be justification for asking for a release from the requirement that the executive must come back to parliament and seek legislative amendments, either through an omnibus bill or through a whole series of separate amendments, every time a salary increase appears to be justified.
I trust that hon. members on all sides of the house will agree with the government's proposals for expediting the salary treatment of the officials covered by the bill. The fact

that their rates of remuneration have remained frozen since December 1, 1963 and that they can be changed only as a result of legislative action by parliament, now long overdue, indicates the nature of the problem. With the legislative work-load that has faced parliament in recent years, and is likely to continue into the future, there would appear to be little justification for adding to parliament's agenda unnecessarily through bills such as these whose sole purpose is to authorize a periodic increase in the salaries of certain officers of boards, commissions, etc.
Further, it is not fair to the officers concerned, in the view of the government, to ask them to accept the long delays in salary adjustments that arise from the existing legislative requirement, especially in times like the present ones when outside salaries are moving upward with abnormal rapidity, and all other public servants, including all deputy ministers and many other members of commissions, boards, etc. can have their salaries kept current and reasonably up to date by executive action.
Members will wish to know the basis on which the proposed increases have been recommended. When deputy ministers', and other order in council salaries were adjusted last to bring them up to date from December 1, 1963 to December 1, 1965, an increase of 8 per cent was determined as the basis for most of those adjustments. The same percentage has been adopted in most of the cases covered by the legislation. Exceptions to the general rule have been made in a number of cases, notably the Auditor General, the vice chairman of the National Energy Board, and the first vice chairman of the Tariff Board, in recognition of the fact that their existing rates of pay do not reflect adequately the measure of their duties and/or the special responsibilities which they are carrying.
In the case of the Auditor General, the amount of increase has also been set in recognition of the fact that any future salary adjustments in his case will require parliamentary action and can only be considered when the Financial Administration Act is undergoing amendment. The effective date for all increases goes back to December 1965-that is the date of the increase for senior civil servants. I should also add that there are certain restraints placed by the bill on the freedom of the governor in council to make further salary adjustments in future. No authority is given for reductions in salary by action of the governor in council. Safeguards
February 23, 1967
are provided to ensure internal relativity and equality of treatment among all ordinary members within each board and commission.
I will be glad to elaborate on these and other points which may be of interest to hon. members when we reach the clause by clause discussion of the bill. Meanwhile, I hope that the explanations I have given will suffice to satisfy the house that it can give approval in principle to the bill at this stage.


Richard Albert Bell: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the house involves a major change in principle. Heretofore a substantial number of salaries were fixed only by statute and the governor in council had no authority in respect of them. As I understand it, the principle behind that practice was simply to assure the total independence of the members of these boards from the governor in council or from any direct or indirect pressure by the cabinet. In this bill we are making a change and putting it within the authority of the cabinet to increase salaries, although the legislation provides a floor. If the house is aware of this major change in principle and is satisfied that there is not likely to arise as a result thereof any type of direct or indirect pressure upon these public servants, then there could be no complaint. I might have understood it more readily if this had applied right across the board in all statutory salaries, but the minister has indicated that there are exemptions in relation to three cases which he says bear a very special relationship to parliament, namely the Auditor General, the Representation Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer. I have some reservations as to whether their intimacy with the work of parliament is of such a nature that it justifies a differentiation from the other categories set forth in the schedule to the bill.
Perhaps the proper time to discuss this with the minister will be in committee of the whole, but I think the minister will have to put before the committee some more cogent reasons than he has already given as to why we should abandon what has been the time honoured procedure of fixing salaries by statute and thereby protecting totally the impartiality and independence of these particular boards and commissions.
I know there are problems which arise by reason of the delay in getting around to the matter, but even those delays can be taken care of when the legislation is made substantially retroactive, as is the case here.
Public Service
What I would like to put to the minister is this: If the principle of fixing salaries by statute was considered by parliament in the past as a necessary requisite to ensure the impartiality and independence of these boards and commissions from any pressure on the part of the governor in council, what has happened to change that situation? Is the minister asserting that the present cabinet is more enlightened than previous cabinets?


Edgar John Benson: Certainly.


Richard Albert Bell: We know of course that such is not the case and that perhaps we have never seen such an unenlightened cabinet in the history of our confederation.
An important principle is involved because there can be no doubt whatsoever that these boards and commissions must be under no pressure whatever from politicians. I will note in passing that for example a new floor is fixed for the chief commissioner of the Board of Transport Commissioners at a figure of $25,000, whereas the old salary was equal to the salary of the President of the Exchequer Court, and the bill that is forthcoming immediately after this bill will fix the salary of the President of the Exchequer Court at $35,000 and of the Exchequer Court judges at $30,000, which is considerably different from what is mentioned for the Board of Transport Commissioners.
We on this side have these reservations and we propose to examine the minister in some detail in committee of the whole, so that he can explain to us why a change is necessary now over what has been the clear position for so many years in preserving the independence by statutory rates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, most of what might be said on this legislation can be said when we are in committee of the whole. It is pretty obvious that with my voice tonight I will not make a 40 minute speech on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is nice to be applauded in the house once in a while, even if one has to promise a short speech in order to get it.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Few people can ask for it and
get it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would simply like to say that I think there is a good case for the kind of change that the government is proposing. I recognize, as the hon. member for Carleton has pointed out, that this is a rather striking



February 23, 1967
Public Service
change because for a long time many of these salaries have been fixed by statute. However, the fact is that throughout the years we have changed this situation one step at a time.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I think there is no more reason for some of these people who are in what are, in effect, administrative positions, to wait for the salary changes, as opposed to deputy ministers and other high ranking officials in the government service. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) has a point which I think is a good one, namely where do we draw the line? Frankly, the thing that appeals to me most about this bill is that the government has left the three officials who are appointed directly by parliament, and who are directly responsible to parliament in the same position they were before, namely that their salaries are fixed by statute and can only be changed by parliament. As has been indicated the three in question are the Auditor General, the Representation Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer.


Richard Albert Bell: The Auditor General is not appointed by parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I accept the correction, but he is responsible to parliament.


Richard Albert Bell: Indeed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It seems to me there is no question but that an official of that kind, who has that sort of responsibility, should not be in a position to put pressure on the government for an increase in salary without it having to come before parliament.
Some people, of course, may look at some of these salaries and think they are too high when compared with the salaries paid in some walks of life. I think it has to be admitted that with the kind of work and the kind of responsibility that is involved, the government has not gone off the deep end. When we get into committee, I should like to ask a question about the members of the Income Tax Appeal Board, who are in part I of the schedule-that is, their salaries need no longer be fixed by statute but will be fixed by the governor in council. I wonder if the Income Tax Appeal Board is not rather close to a court. It seems to me that just as we leave the salaries of judges to be fixed by statute, the same situation should apply to the members of that board.
As I understand it, the Income Tax Appeal Board is a board to which taxpayers can

appeal against the decisions of the Department of National Revenue. It strikes me there is that kind of judicial independence that should be maintained there. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not necessary to spin this out at length. I think that in principle what the government is asking parliament to do has much to commend it. We shall welcome further comments by the minister on the details when we get into committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 2-Interpretation.
Richard Albert Bell: I assume the minister is going to make some further comment?


Edgar John Benson: I should like to make one or two comments with regard to some questions raised by the hon. member for Carleton and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. First of all, the main reason this legislation is presented by the government is that the government thinks it is unfair to statutory officials who have been appointed to have to wait long periods of time in order to get their salaries adjusted.
I do not think, personally, with the protection that is built into clause 4 of this bill, that there is any question of the government threatening the independence of the people involved. I think that their independence will remain as it is and as provided by statute, because clause 4 forbids the government to reduce any salary and compels it to treat everyone at the same level fairly. This will maintain the independence of these boards. I can assure the committee that any time the government was going to raise some of the salaries and chose to leave out any one board, the members of the opposition would not allow this procedure to go unnoticed. There would be therefore adequate protection.
Another question that was raised was the question of the floor for the chairman of the Board of Transport Commissioners. This question was raised at the time we were going to change these salaries, and I believe although I am not sure that it was discussed with the chairman by the Minister of Transport. One of the things that is happening with this particular board is that its situation is changing; there will be a new board. The present chairman, I believe, is the last one who will have the opportunity to move into the Exchequer Court. He presently can become a member of the Exchequer Court, as I understand the situation.
February 23, 19G7

A question was raised with regard to the Income Tax Appeal Board by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He said it had some judicial function. However, it is not a court in the true sense in that it is not conducted the way other courts are. Each of these boards included in the bill has some sort of judicial capacity in its activities. I do not believe the mere fact of being covered in this particular bill will in any way affect the independence of the Income Tax Appeal Board. In addition to that, tomorrow we will have the Carter Commission report and we may see some changes suggested with respect to various matters, perhaps including the Income Tax Appeal Board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It takes ten years to implement a royal commission report.


Edgar John Benson: It does not take this government ten years to implement a report.
If there are any other questions, I would be glad to deal with them as we move along.


Thomas Miller Bell: It becomes a matter of judgment, whether the new principle in this bill showed he adopted, but I confess I have considerable sympathy for the members of these boards who see deputy ministers and others getting their salaries adjusted with regularity, while they must wait to come to parliament. I believe the new system, imposes a special responsibility upon those who sit in the opposition, during such limited time as we will be sitting on this side of the house, to watch what is done by the government. We must make absolutely certain that these powers now being vested in the governor in council will not be used to reward sycophancy or punish independence.
It would be a most undesirable thing if members of boards who exercised full independence were denied an increase because the government was displeased with them. Now, I recognize when I say that, if the government were displeased they probably would not have any legislation passed and there would be no increase. I have reservations, and I can only say those reservations are such that they impose upon the opposition a special responsibility to watch what is being done by the governor in council in respect of these salaries.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of National Revenue and President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Benson) referred to
Public Service
certain cases of impartiality such as, for instance, the position of chairman of the Tax Appeal Board and the chairman of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I would also like to mention another case, namely the position of Chief Electoral Officer, the person responsible for the administration of the Canada Elections Act. Mr. Chairman, I have nothing whatsoever against the Chief Electoral Officer. However, I would like to say that, in my opinion, this person has a thankless job to do. I am not against an increase in salary for him, but I would like to make sure that there is no doubt as to the impartiality of this official on behalf of the government.
I would like to point out here a particular case where there is reason to wonder whether the government is not trying to force its decisions upon the population, through its senior officers, in such important areas as the administration of the Canada Elections Act.
In recent years, the act was amended and the Electoral Boundaries Commission was established. This commission has tried to-


Edgar John Benson: I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. Does he not realize that in this bill the salary of the Chief Electoral Officer is to be determined by parliament? The government in the case of the Chief Electoral Officer, as in the case of the Redistribution Commissioner and the Auditor General, will not have the right to act on salaries.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I realize that. But I note as well that the salary has been increased in that instance, and I want to point out something important, lest I do not have another opportunity to do so.
I shall continue. Two or three years ago, in this house, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) proposed the creation of a redistribution commission to be composed of impartial commissioners appointed by a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada and so on and so forth. For days we spoke about the necessity of there being the utmost impartiality in matters dealing with elections.
Now, Mr. Chairman, after those grandiose statements by the Liberal party, I see the Elections Act was not really applied impartially and that it even served political purposes, of which I shall give a specific instance.
In my constituency of Lapointe, there was a returning officer who did a very good job. He

February 23, 1987
Public Service
was an appointee of the Conservative party, at the time it was in office. I have had the opportunity to deal with that returning officer in the last three elections. One cannot say that I am trying to protect a supporter, for he was appointed by the Conservative party. But he is a competent man who had the necessary qualifications to fulfil his duties well-and I say this, knowing that he may be one of my opponents in politics. He is still young enough, as he has not yet reached 65. And all of a sudden, without any notice to him, and simply because of the new boundaries of the riding, somebody else is appointed in his place. That other man I do not know.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is giving wrong information to the house, because the present returning officer in the present riding of Lapointe is still in office. If the separatist member for Lapointe decided to leave parliament in Ottawa once and for all, the gentleman in question would be the returning officer for his riding.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will say to the hon. member that he is most definitely wrong because the one who was in office for the 1965 elections was a Mr. J. O. Bradette and that the one who holds the office right now and who sent me copies of the new redistribution of polling stations less than a month ago is a Mr. Belanger of Kenogami.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I maintain that the hon. member for Lapointe is not speaking the truth, because the returning officer for the present riding of Lapointe is still the same Mr. Bradette.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, let the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State explain to me how it is that the official correspondence I am now receiving bears the signature of Mr. Belanger of Kenogami, returning officer. It is not my intention to blame this gentleman, I do not know whether he is efficient or not, I never met him. But I received recently a letter from Mr. Belanger of Kenogami, insurance broker, notifying me that, from now on, the new polls will be the following, and giving the numbers, and that there will be so many voters in each poll, and he is giving me the whole distribution of polls as regards the next election and he is telling me that he has been appointed to look after the implementation of the Elections Act in the constituency of Lapointe during the next election. Perhaps it would be the other one, if
[Mr. Gregoire.!
it were a by-election, but at any rate, the one looking after the correspondence, the one who received the order and the necessary amounts to reorganize the distribution of polls in the constituency of Lapointe is not Mr. J. O. Bradette any more, former returning officer in the constituency of Lapointe, but Mr. Belanger, whose given name I forget; but I have some of his letters in my office and his signature bears the mention "Returning Officer for the constituency of Lapointe". Therefore, should he be usurping such a title,
I would like to ask the government to initiate the necessary proceedings.
I do not know him, Mr. Chairman, I am not saying he is not competent, I am not saying he does not have the knowledge he should-


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Lapointe; I think he is making remarks about a returning officer in a constituency, when we are dealing with a bill related to the chief electoral officer, which has nothing to do with the appointment or the duties of a returning officer in a constituency. I would therefore ask the hon. member to address himself to the bill we are considering.


Gilles Grégoire: I think you are right, Mr. Chairman, but I was side-tracked by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). Now, if the hon. member for Bonaventure is prepared to rise and state that Mr. Bradette is still the returning officer for the constituency of Lapointe or that he has been reinstated in that job, in short, if he has not been replaced and there is no question of replacing him, I can assure the house that it will help in bringing this debate to an early conclusion.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. I interrupt the hon. member because I do not believe the we can deal with this question at this stage. I should then request the hon. member to limit his remarks to the bill now before us.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if, as I said, the hon. member for Bonaventure is right, then, the question I am raising as to the impartiality of senior civil servants or the authority that may be exerted by the government over senior civil servants is no longer motivated. So, I say that if I am right, then I shall connect the whole thing to the authority of the government over the senior civil servants listed in the schedule of Bill No. C-266. If I am right, I intend to mention the activities of the government. If I am wrong, obviously, I can no longer mention them. So, Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree with me
February 23, 1967

that I have raised the point, thinking that I was right, in stating that there had been undue influence by the government in the selection of a returning officer precisely-since the government does not appoint them directly-through the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer appoints the people suggested to him or dictated to him by the government.


Albert Béchard: On a point of order. Once again I want to say that the hon. member is ill-informed and that he does not know the act, because returning officers are appointed by order in council and not by the chief electoral officer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, if I am not
mistaken, returning officers are appointed by the chief electoral officer who follows-


Maurice Rinfret: I do not think this is the proper time to discuss who is responsible for the appointment of returning officers in a constituency. I feel any remarks from either side of the house should deal with the bill now before the committee.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I am only referring to Part II of the schedule of Bill No. C-266 where mention is made of the chief electoral officer. I simply wanted to suggest that this senior official appointed by the government should be completely and totally free from any interference on the part of the government.
When I raised that point earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State told me that the returning officer in my riding had not been changed. If such is the case-I have almost completed my remarks-since I have received letters from an individual who signs as the returning officer for my riding, I shall ask the government to take appropriate action against that person who is usurping rights and taking upon himself duties which are not his. I do not know him and I do not know whether or not he is qualified to carry out those duties. I do know, however, that I received some letters, and if this is an imposture, I shall advise the government to that effect and ask that action be taken. On the other hand, if the hon. member for Bona-venture is right, I shall be pleased to know that a man performing his work efficiently has not been dismissed without any reason.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Public Service
On clause 4-Limitation on authority to fix salaries.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board would care to tell us how this bill will be handled by the commissioners who are revising the statutes. This bill in its schedule provides amendments to ten different statutes while some of the clauses lay down certain principles.


Edgar John Benson: I would hope, and I will request, that the changes in the individual statutes be built into them. I think this would be the proper way to deal with this matter. The clauses which cover all of those statutes will, of course, be included in this statute as well.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is why I asked my question on clause 4. I can see that it is easy and appropriate to build the ten changes listed in the schedule into the separate acts. But what happens to clause 4? Does it get built into the same ten acts ten different times?


Edgar John Benson: Not being an expert on the consolidation of statutes I cannot tell the hon. member exactly how this will be handled but I will bring the problem to the attention of those who consolidate the statutes and I am sure they will do the proper thing in the circumstances. I really do not know what it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister know whether the commissioners solved the last problem he took to them last year when he put through am omnibus bill of this character?


Edgar John Benson: I have not seen what they did but I know this matter was brought to their attention.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 5-Coming into force.
Richard Albert Bell: I did not follow the minister when he spoke of the reasons for the choice of this date December 1, 1965. By the time this bill comes into effect, that will be 15 months ago. Have there been any adjustments made to major salaries in that 15-month period and do these salaries take such adjustments into consideration, if any have been made since December 1, 1965?


Edgar John Benson: There have been no changes made in the senior order in council appointments since that date. This matter is under review at the present time and the present legislation, among other things, will make it passible for any changes in senior order in

February 23, 1367
Public Service
council appointments to be applied to those receiving statutory salaries immediately. The last salary change in senior order in council appointments, that is, deputy ministers and so on, was made on December 1, 1965, and is in the same amount as this adjustment.


Thomas Miller Bell: So the minister has not built in to these minimum figures anything that has happened since that time.


Edgar John Benson: Nothing has happened to the senior order in council appointments. When they are reconsidered, those other salaries will be reconsidered at the same time.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With regard to this retroactive aspect, can the minister in his other capacity tell us what happens with regard to these retroactive payments as far as income tax is concerned?


Edgar John Benson: Salaried employees report
their incomes on a cash basis. If they received this cash in 1967 it will be taxed in 1967.


Mr. Ballard:: I wish to ask a question on the schedule. I should like to point out that the salary increases outlined follow fairly closely a mathematical formula with respect to increases, with the exception of the first, where the chief commissioner under the Canada Grain Act receives a salary increase of $3,500, from $19,000 to $22,500. In the next category, under the Income Tax Act, the salary of the assistant chairman is increased from $19,000 to $20,520, and each of the increases from previous salaries of $19,000 is of a similar amount. I wonder why this increase to $22,500 was made in the case of the grain commissioner? Is this a special case? Who recommended such an increase?


Edgar John Benson: I mentioned previously that the over-all increase was 8 per cent and in my opening statement I said there were certain exceptions, and the reasons for those exceptions were explained. Unfortunately I do not have my statement with me now.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On the schedule.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to ask a question or two on the schedule. The previous speaker said the increases are more or less on a mathematical basis. Can the minister inform the committee what formula was used in increasing these salaries?


Edgar John Benson: In my statement on second reading of this bill I did explain that the basis, generally, was 8 per cent as given to

senior order in council appointments, with some exceptions where we were advised that the responsibilities had been increased or changed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who is the chairman of the International Boundary Waters Commission and can the minister inform us what are his qualifications to hold this position?


Edgar John Benson: Really, this is not within my jurisdiction. I am interested in the salaries of these positions; I am not familiar with the people who occupy all the various positions in the government service. But I will find out for the hon. member and inform him of the name of the chairman and of his qualifications for appointment.


Thomas Miller Bell: I do not think anyone doubts the qualifications of Mr. Arnold Heeney, Q.C.


An hon. Member:: That is not the one.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I should like to make one or two observations about the Auditor General's salary as set forth in this act. The minister no doubt recalls that the third report of the public accounts committee made a recommendation that the salary of the Auditor General should be tied to those of the senior deputy ministers of the various departments.
e (9:50 p.m.)


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer this question. The salary of the Auditor General at this level will be higher than that of the most senior deputy minister in government. The reason we did not tie the Auditor General's salary to any other was that it is felt that the salaries of the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Representation Commissioner should be set by parliament from time to time, because these officials are responsible directly to parliament rather than to the government.


Alfred Dryden Hales: This is just the point. The minister has said that these salaries will be set by the executive. As we know, no one except the government can introduce in this house a money bill. Therefore the Auditor General, whom everyone in this house wants to see remain independent and a servant of all of us, should be kept independent. If the salaries of these three officials, including the Auditor General, are tied to the executive, then the executive would have direction over the Auditor General by having the authority to freeze his salary and perhaps force him out of office by means of a salary adjustment.
February 23, 1967

On the other hand, if his salary were tied in with that of the senior deputy ministers, then any discrimination would have to be against all the senior deputy ministers as a group and it would not be possible to deal with the Auditor General as one person.
My argument is that we are not making the Auditor General independent by fixing his salary in the manner set out in this bill. I should like to bring this to the attention of the minister and the house. The suggestion of the public accounts committee is that the salary of the Auditor General should be tied in with the salaries of senior deputy ministers and should be in an amount not less than the salary of the most senior deputy minister. In that case the Auditor General would have a greater independence than he has under the bill which we have before us.
I think we are making a mistake here. As a matter of fact, the salary of the Auditor General has been revised only twice in a period of 40 years whereas in the same period other statutory salaries were revised four times, and the salaries of other officials were revised eight times. Had the situation existed that his salary would not be less than that of the highest salary paid to a senior deputy minister, this situation could not have prevailed.
I believe the Auditor General has been receiving a salary in an amount less than that received by the senior deputy minister of the crown. I think it is shameful that we have allowed this situation to obtain for as long as it has. The Auditor General should be one of the highest paid servants of parliament, and he has not been. 1 am very much afraid that we are not providing the independence to which he is entitled in this position.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, I have just arrived in the house. There are some things I should like to point out at this time. I do not believe there are sound principles included in this bill. We are being asked to approve of a schedule of salaries to be set by the governor in council. In approving this legislation we will be approving of only the minimum salary. Members of the committee will notice that in every case the salary specified states that it shall not be less than a certain amount. It states that it shall be set by the governor in council. This means the cabinet, does it not, Mr. Chairman? So, the government is asking us to allow the cabinet to create and encourage more patronage in respect of these positions.
I agree with other hon. members who have said that the salary, especially in the case of
Public Service
the Auditor General, should be ample and should be one commensurate with the important duties of the official concerned. I cannot support the bill in the way it appears now, because by doing so I would be condoning any future action the cabinet might take regarding the setting of the actual salaries of these commissioners, civil servants and so on. These should be set by parliament. I see that the minister is shaking his head. I suppose he does not agree with my statement. Nevertheless I warn the house that the object of the government apparently is to get us to allow them to set these salaries.
No doubt some of these commissioners are members of the judiciary, the Tariff Board, the Board of Transport Commissioners, and so on. I do not think any of them should be beholden to this or any government or cabinet in respect of the amount of their salaries. I do not think they should be in a position where they would be expected to express gratitude to the members on the treasury benches. I think it would be wrong to give the cabinet the power to set these salaries.
Parliament sits every year. We sit a year at a time, as is evident from this session. We have a good deal of time in which to deal with these salaries. Let them be set here, and let the amount be the actual salary and not the minimum; let parliament do it. If we were to give the cabinet the power to do this, we would be giving this privilege to one political party, namely the one which is in power at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
On clause 1.
Gilles Grégoire: Ten o'clock.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. member for Lapointe would be good enough to co-operate so that we might get on with this bill and complete it tonight.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would like very much to co-operate and allow consideration of this bill to be completed tonight, but since, a moment ago, the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Bechard) made a statement attempting to distort the truth and indulged in mental reservations, I feel it is my duty to check the facts and, by continuing consideration of clause 1 of the present bill, to be in a position to point out the truth to the hon. member.
Public Service

February 23, 1967
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, before you rise and report progress, I wonder whether we could not continue with the consideration of this bill, since it is so obviously the wish of almost all the members of the committee that we do so.


Gilles Grégoire: I am ready to accept, Mr. Chairman, that we continue consideration of this bill tonight, but I should like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State concerning clause 1. Of course, I do not have the facts before me now, because the documents are in my office, but the parliamentary secretary was wrong when he stated a moment ago that the returning officer in my riding had not changed; I have facts to the contrary. If he is ready to speak the truth now, I think we could continue tonight.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member-indeed I gave him the correct answer a while ago-if he did not understand exactly what I said, I cannot help it. I said, in answer to the same member, that Mr. Bradette, of the present riding of Lapointe, was still returning officer in the present riding of Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, can the parliamentary secretary tell me whether a Mr. Belanger has been appointed to replace him in the new constituency of Lapointe, under the new Canada Elections Act that was passed two years ago?


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, mention has been made of the present electoral district of Lapointe. He said: his constituency. He does not mean that it is his riding for the next election.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, it can be seen that the parliamentary secretary is always making mental reservations. He very well knows that a new returning officer has been appointed in the electoral district of Lapointe that was changed by the last Canada Elections Act, which will be in force at the next election. I believe the parliamentary secretary should admit that, instead of imagining things that are not true.

Mr. Chairman, changing the subject, I should like to say a word or two concerning clause 1. I shall not be long: just a word or two. Clause 1 gives us, quite rightly, a general idea of the whole bill.
Mr. Chairman, I did not object to any of those increases, because the people involved hold important positions, bear heavy responsibilities and must possess the necessary ability.
However, I should like to point out that this legislation indicates that Canada is now going through a period of inflation and increase in the cost of living. The salaries of civil servants must be raised because of the tremendous increase in the cost of living in Canada; I think the government should take steps to stop this continuous increase. Actually, Bill No. C-266 which we are now studying contains the evidence, examples and arguments concerning this increase.
If salaries of public servants are increased, it is because the cost of living has increased. Well, if that is all right for those senior officials, if no objection is raised, this would lead us to think that this would also be good for all the civil servants of Canada. It would probably be good also for all the workers and farmers of Canada.
We are now increasing salaries by $5,000. Certain officials will obtain $5,000 outright in addition to their regular salary. Well, if we are in a position to grant salary increases of $5,000, I wonder whether we could not make sure that Canadian wage-earners get at least $5,000 in wages per year. If an increase of $5,000 per annum is quite acceptable for some high-ranking civil servants, would not a minimum annual salary of $5,000 be equally welcome for the Canadian citizens?
There is a disproportion in the fact that some salaries are increased by $5,000 in some cases, whereas there are some government employees who do not even get a salary of $5,000. In my opinion, all such increases are occasioned by the present rise in the cost of living.
Mr. Chairman, before I resume my seat, I may say that I do not object to such increases, since the government is responsible for the rise in the cost of living, since it raises the taxes and takes various measures to make living in Canada more expensive. The present government is to blame and should be held responsible for such a situation.
If the government sees this need for increased salaries in the case of senior officers, it must also realize that the low wage-earner
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
in Canada also has to face this higher cost of living. The government has a very serious responsibility toward the low wage-earners and those who can only count on their old age pension for a living. It is up to the government to take the necessary steps so that the low wage-earners, the not so well-off Canadians, receive compensation for these mistakes the government has made.
I believe those comments were necessary, Mr. Chairman, because if the government realizes that certain civil servants must be granted increased salaries due to the rising cost of living, it must not go on ignoring the low wage-earners, those Canadian citizens on low income, also have a right to these increases, these adjustments, commensurate with the increase in the cost of living.
The greatest fault, as I said before, lies with the government who has failed to check this increase in the cost of living, to which it has even contributed by raising taxes such as the 1 per cent sales tax and the 11 per cent tax on building materials. The government will never get enough blame for such actions and I am convinced the Canadian people will act accordingly at the next election, because the government did nothing to curb the increase in the cost of living as shown by Bill No. C-266, now before us.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Edgar John Benson: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['Order, please. I must interrupt the minister. The time allotted to him has expired.\nMotion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.\n*', 'Friday, February 24, 1967']
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the house will be asked to consider first the supplementary estimates, followed by items 127, 116, 120, 130, 133, 128 and 129. After the first three items there may be a desire to change the order of the other items but if there is it will only be done after consultation with the house leaders of the other parties.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.



Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, on February 14 I inquired of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) whether the government intended to make any representations to the government of Portugal about the recent introduction of a decree providing for the exile from metropolitan Portugal of political prisoners. I am glad to have the opportunity to enlarge on the importance of this question. My question arose out of a recent trip taken by the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacDonald) and myself to Lisbon when we had the opportunity of interviewing a good many outstanding Portugese lawyers, writers, students and relatives of political prisoners.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
It is of course no news that Portugal has for many years-I think about 40 now-been governed by a dictatorship. Nor is it news that Portugal is a police state. What is not perhaps equally well known is that repression is growing worse and not, as in Spain, moderating. This may be, of course, because of increasingly adverse economic conditions which result, in part perhaps, from Portugal's involvement in three colonial wars in Africa.
On September 24 of last year, Mr. Speaker, a new decree was passed by the government of Portugal. It is No. 47216 and the substance of it is that the ministers of justice and overseas can authorize sentences or security measures issued by metropolitan courts-metropolitan courts are the courts in Portugal-or courts of the adjacent islands to be served in prison establishments overseas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, deportation or exile has long been a sinister weapon of dictatorship. This particular decree revives in Portugal, and amongst the many political prisoners and their families, the memories of a notorious concentration camp, the Tarrafal, in the Cape Verde Islands. Many people lost their lives or rotted away in these remote islands, forgotten, and where they could not very well be observed. The effect of this sort of decree is to separate people from their families and from any contact with the civilized world.
13424	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion That the government of Portugal is ashamed of this sort of decree is obvious from the fact that, although the decree is published in an official gazette, we were shown a newspaper which merely reprinted the decree without any comment, and this was crossed out by the censors so the people generally should not have it published to them.
It may be asked why we in Canada should be concerned. The reason is that we are an ally of Portugal in NATO. Both Canada and Portugal are bound by the treaty to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their peoples founded on the principle of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. The callous disregard for the rule of law and the reversion to barbarism by coercing political prisoners reflects discredit not only on the particular country but on the whole western alliance which is supposed to be united in preserving certain basic human values. It may be said that the Portuguese authorities will know that Canada looks askance on methods of terrorism, that it would be unnecessary or useless for us to intervene or protest. It may be said the protests would be disregarded. We were assured many times that about the only thing that could influence the government of that country was international concern that was expressed.
Canada, I suggest, should base its protest on the terms of the NATO treaty and upon the universal declaration of human rights. We cannot in Canada shut our eyes to oppression, no matter where it happens to be. We should do something to prevent this infamous decree from being employed. We ought to make a protest that may well influence the government of that country which still desires to be considered civilized.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, (Mr. Martin) in the absence of his parliamentary secretary, I shall say to the hon. member that I have no information which would tend to contradict the reports the hon. member is referring to.
The Canadian attitude to human rights questions is well known. Last December for instance at the United Nations we voted for the covenant on human rights as well as for the convention for elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
I believe that the United Nations is creating a climate which gives increasing weight to the moral force of world public opinion on

DEBATES	February 23, 1967
human rights. We are contributing in this way to the growth of a situation in which the remedy for the questions raised may eventually be found.
The Portuguese government is fully aware of the views of the Canadian government on human rights questions. I think the hon. member has already received an adequate explanation on that subject from the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a previous date.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, further to the question I put this morning with regard to some T.V. producers, I must say it is high time the minister stepped in.
You may object that the minister has nothing to say about the production of programs. I shall retort that it is up to him to protect the public, that it is his duty, a duty he cannot shirk.
I must admit we are pretty well fed up with some of the goings-on over T.V., and generally speaking, the Canadian people feel even more strongly about it than we do.
We have reached the point where we ask: Who is boss in this country of ours? Who makes the laws? Whose duty is it to see that those laws are respected? I ask you those same questions. Are you going to remain silent much longer before such disquieting radio and T.V. performances as we witness? Some T.V. producers seem to be using the network to spread subversive ideas.
During the past few years, this has too often been the case on our screens. Sometimes you have some immigrant from Cuba or other socialist country appearing, trying to make the population believe that the country he has left-probably because he could no longer stand it there-has the best system of government in the world. And the population believes these lies. In the first place, you will note that most of the revolutionary leaders are foreigners.
Later, our Canadian citizens appear on the screen, being granted free time by the authorities, taking pride in the fact that they are militant communists or revolutionary socialists.
They take the authority of running down all authorities with shouts of "Liberty"; they deny any authority; they engage in the most shameful immorality. And that is shown on
February 23, 1967	COMMONS
our screens, in our living rooms. Divorce is a daily pastime. The actors are often homosexuals performing on the stage with naked women in the background. And the feast goes on in an orgy beyond description in which our great alcoholics play their parts. Now, if some honest people-for there happen to be some honest people left in Canada-make the mistake of informing the authorities, our modern scatter-brains call them old-fashioned.
Today, through guilty indifference, if not implicit approval, which I would not dare believe, we are obviously heading toward a revolution. We are in a tower of Babel. Those who should use broadcasting facilities to inform the people have abdicated in favor of revolutionaries.
We say that consciously or not the present government is encouraging that situation -for instance by allowing a man called Bour-geault to talk on eight occasions on television and radio. And what did he have to say? That he is an agnostic, that is to say that he no longer believes in God or the devil and that he wants to lead a country made up of 80 per cent of Roman Catholics and Christians. And some applaud such aberration; it is enough to make one weep, Mr. Speaker.
On another occasion a student or a university professor will tell us that he is an atheist, a communist or a socialist and that only through revolution will Quebec gain her freedom.
Finally, another one comes with his children. He says proudly that he did not have them baptized to leave them free to choose their religion. Can you imagine a two-year old or a five-year old choosing his religion while waiting probably for the day when he will at last be able to choose his father or mother who never got married anyway? What a lovely generation.
Do you really believe it is with such individuals we are going to build a sound and strong society? I am therefore asking the hon. minister, on behalf of the Canadian people, to create as soon as possible a board of inquiry to do the housecleaning work that is needed in the C.B.C. Thank God, there are still several honest workers in the C.B.C., whose most ardent desire is to purge our sound-waves from the filth of society. The general welfare commands the attention of the hon. minister in that field and a delay would but aggravate such a discouraging situation. I am therefore urging him to act and to act quickly.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, in Canada, thank God, we still live in a free country, and I hope we will never see the destiny of our country in the hands of a totalitarian and communist regime, as has and still is the unfortunate lot of several countries in the world.
In a free country, Mr. Speaker, all citizens should have freedom of thought and of speech and, like all taxpayers, they should be allowed to use the information media available.
In a free country, Mr. Speaker, the state cannot decently and logically seek to control information media, the press, radio and television. To try to deprive the various political parties or those who wish to express their views in public of these publication and communication media would, in my opinion, be tantamount to depriving the citizens of a free country of the exercise of their freedom.
I think the hon. member himself would be the first to condemn the state, the Canadian government for instance, if a member of his party or himself were to be prevented tomorrow from expressing their views and their policies to the citizens of the province of Quebec or of Canada, as they have done so freely since 1962 and during the previous years.
However, I will admit with the hon. member that liberty does not mean licence and that those are two entirely different things.
I believe that when public order and morals are seriously threatened, something should be done so that, as I said before, we may not be crushed under the dictatorship of a totalitarian government. We want our government to remain democratic and if the ideas spread by state broadcasting tended to upset the established order, I believe that some action would be necessary.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-since, I presume, we want to single out the C.B.C.-is independent of the Canadian government, and belongs to all the taxpayers and the Canadian population. When the corporation was established, directors were appointed, and I believe that, to prevent it from being controlled by the state, its officials can intervene when it seems that certain limits have been exceeded.
13426	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [DOT] (10:20 p.ra.)


Robert Muir: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, with his usual fairness and objectivity, failed to mention the fact that the Coastguard College was established at Point Edward-


Robert Muir: That employs only half dozen at Point Edward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -and industries are going into Point Edward.


Robert Muir: Only half a dozen people are employed at the Coastguard College.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman has had his say, Mr. Speaker, and I trust he will abide by the rules and let me have mine.


Robert Muir: I trust that you will be factual.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no area in Canada with regard to which this government has tried so hard to provide alternatives to certain industries that are declining because of the progress of the times. That progress is not going to be arrested, and it is not the fault of the government that the progress itself may have been stimulated by the activities of a dynamic government.


Robert Muir: You are so modest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: While I have no quarrel with the hon. gentleman's concern about anything that is going to be disturbing to his community, it does seem to me that we in this national forum are entitled to have all the facts placed before us. I would have been much more impressed by what the hon. gentleman said if he had left out the last few words. I am afraid there is very little I can add to the information I have already given on this question. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion make no apology for not knowing the answer to this question yesterday; I do not run Canadian National Railways, and I hope no government ever does.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: No point of order can be raised at this time. The hon. member should know the rules.


Robert Muir: I suggest that the minister stick to the truth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, as I say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the minister resume his seat for just a moment. I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. Muir) that we have these adjournment debates every night and we never have any difficulty. Hon. members who have a question are given the opportunity to speak for seven minutes without interruption, and ministers are entitled to make a three-minute reply without interruption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as the question is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the government does not run Canadian National Railways, and I hope no government will ever attempt to do so. All any minister of transport can do is ask the railway for information, which has to be done in any case.
I have information from the C.N.R. which I will read, but it is almost exactly to the same effect as the information which the hon. gentleman already has, that is that the railway is still studying the rationalization of the express freight operations throughout their whole system, and that of course includes the area in question. The railway has assured the government that before any final decision on the rationalization of express freight handling operations in North Sydney is taken there will be full consultation with the unions involved to assure that dislocation is kept to a minimum so far as local employment and also service to their customers is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the minister. The time allotted to him has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.
*

Friday, February 24, 1967