1968-12-11

TABLING OF REPORT ON LONG DISTANCE TRANSMISSION

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the report to the federal-provincial ministerial committee on long distance transmission. The report is entitled "Regional and national electric transmission systems for Canada-stage II assessment". Appended to this report is the main volume of the report by the consultants of the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table this document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-142, to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, this bill is
designed to put a few teeth in the law in respect of those who mistreat animals, both domestic animals and others, and provide a minimum penalty for those so convicted and also an order against those who have been convicted once prohibiting them from keeping animals or birds of any kind in their possession for a period of two years.
I hope perhaps this and other, similar bills will be referred to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Harding: 1.	How many new training institutions, which can be utilized by "Canada Manpower" for its training programs, will be completed in Canada, by provinces, by (a) December 31, 1968, (b) December 31, 1969?
2.	Does the federal government share in the cost of this new construction and, if so, on what basis?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Number of training institutions to be completed by the end of:
	Dec. 1968 Dec.	
Newfoundland	0	0P.E.I.	0	0Nova Scotia	1	3New Brunswick	0	1Quebec	2 Could n establis	Ontario	6	5Manitoba	0	15Saskatchewan	0	1Alberta	0	3British Columbia	0	0Yukon Territory	0	0North West Territories	0	12.	Under the Adult Occupational Training Act the federal government continues reimbursing the provinces for approved expenditures incurred in providing vocational training facilities, up to a maximum of $800 per person in the 15-19 year age-group in the province (Census 1961). Federal share is 75% of approved expenditures up to $480 per capita, and 50% for the remaining $320 per capita.


CANADA MANPOWER TRAINING CAPACITY
Mr. Harding: 1.	What was the total training capacity available to "Canada Manpower" by province, for 1967 and 1968?
2.	How much of this total training capacity was utilized by "Canada Manpower" in 1967 and 1968?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. In general, the total training capacity available to the occupational training for adults program is sufficient to accommodate clients of Canada manpower centres referred to the program. This is especially true for courses such as language training and educational up-grading

December 11, 1968
Questions
that do not require special facilicites. In certain communities, however, facilities for vocational and technical courses are either non-existent or scarce. In such cases, candidates for training are either sent to training centres in other communities or are asked to wait until training places become available. In many instances, training centres operate two or even three shifts daily in order to accommodate adults who were referred to training.
Another factor affecting the capacity is the availability of suitable instructional staff. The provinces are aware of the problem and are taking appropriate steps to solve it.
The level of training under this program is by and large determined by the availability of suitable adults who can benefit from training by acquiring skills which are in demand, and by the funds made available by parliament.
2.	In the fiscal year 1967-68, the following numbers of adults were enrolled under the program: Newfoundland, 4,119; P.E.I., 1,474; Nova Scotia, 4,729; New Brunswick, 4,756; Quebec, 68,748; Ontario, 69,049; Manitoba, 5,979; Saskatchewan, 4,761; Alberta, 11,168; British Columbia, 8,625; Yukon, 132; Canada, 183,540.
As the budget for the fiscal year 1968-69 is substantially higher than that for the previous year, it is expected that enrolments will be higher in all provinces.


MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAM
Mr. Harding: 1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are currently being trained under Canada Manpower?
2.	What is the estimated cost for 1968, by provinces, of this training programme?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. As of November 29, 1968 the following numbers of adults were enrolled in OTA courses: Newfoundland, 2,091; P.E.I., 984; Nova Scotia, 3,493; New Brunswick, 1,502; Quebec, 20,100; Ontario, 17,986; Manitoba, 2,388; Saskatchewan, 2,141; Alberta, 3,871; British Columbia, 2,550; Canada, 57,106.
2.	The OTA budget is allocated to the five administrative Regions of the Department. The 1968-69 allocation is as follows: Atlantic region, $26.3 million; Quebec region, $67.3 million; Ontario region, $66.0 million; Prairie region, $27.0 million; Pacific region, $10.5 million.


MANPOWER TRAINING PROGRAMS AND CENTRES
Mr. Harding: 1.	Under the Canada Manpower Training Plan in 1967 and 1968, by provinces, what were the training programmes in effect and the number of persons in each programme?
2.	How many training centres were utilized by
"Manpower" in each province for (a)	1967, and
(b) 1968 (to date)?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. In the fiscal year 1967-68 the following numbers of trainees were enrolled under the OTA
legislation:
	Adults	Trainees under the
	under	Phase-Out
	OTA	Agreement
Newfoundland	4,119	3,813P.E.I.	1,474	666Nova Scotia	4,729	5,267New Brunswick	4,756	3,197Quebec	68,748	39,776Ontario	69,049	34,671Manitoba	5,979	5,089Saskatchewan	4,761	3,631Alberta	11,168	7,744British Columbia	8,625	6,084N.W.T.	-	58Yukon	132	97Canada	183,540	110,093For the fiscal year 1968-69 the numbers of	trainees are not yet available. Enrolments as	of November 29, 1968 are given in the answer	to question 208. 2. The number of	training	institutionsutilized by Canada Manpower in	1967-68 and1968 (up to September 30) is as	follows:1967-68	1-3-68 to 30-9-68Newfoundland	15	16P.E.I.	9	25Nova Scotia	27	50New Brunswick	43	76Quebec	334	651Ontario	79	94Manitoba	63	95Saskatchewan	22	43Alberta	23	81British Columbia	36	34Yukon	2	1N.W.T.	-	1TOTAL	653	1,167
[Mr. MacEachen.)
December 11, 19S8


MANPOWER TRAINING, 1967
Mr. Harding: 1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, were trained under "Canada Manpower" in 1967?
2.	What was the total cost, by provinces, of this training programme in 1967?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. In the fiscal year 1967-68 the following numbers of trainees were enrolled under the OTA legislation:
	Adults	Trainees under the Phase-Out
	under OTA	Arrangement
Newfoundland	4,119	3,813P.E.I.	1,474	666Nova Scotia	4,729	5,267New Brunswick	4,756	3,197Quebec	68,748	39,776Ontario	69,049	34,671Manitoba	5,979	5,089Saskatchewan	4,761	3,631Alberta	11,168	7,744British Columbia	8,625	6,084N.W.T.	_	58Yukon	132	97Canada	183,540	110,093
2. The total cost to the federal government in the fiscal year 1967-68 for training under the OTA legislation was as follows:

Newfoundland	6,588,000
P.E.I.	928,000
Nova Scotia	6,349,000
New Brunswick	3,974,000
Quebec	48,691,000
Ontario	52,469,000
Manitoba	7,267,000
Saskatchewan	5,437,000
Alberta	8,586,000
B.C. and Yukon	7,598,000
Canada	147,887,000


ADULT MANPOWER TRAINING BY PROVINCES
Mr. Harding: What is the amount of training under the Adult Occupational Training Act which Canada Manpower agreed to purchase for (a) each of the provinces in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1968 (b) each of the provinces in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969?
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: (a) In the fiscal year 1967-68, the department purchased places for the following numbers of adult trainees:
	Adults under OTA
Newfoundland	4,119
P.E.I.	1,474
Nova Scotia	4,729
New Brunswick	4,756
Quebec	68,748
Ontario	69,049
Manitoba	5,979
Saskatchewan	4,761
Alberta	11,168
British Columbia	8,625
N.W.T.	_
Yukon	132
Canada	183,540
(b) Negotiations for purchases for the current fiscal year are not yet completed, but the department expects that these purchases will be substantially higher in all provinces than last year.


ASSISTANCE TO NOVA SCOTIA ON STEEL INDUSTRY TAKEOVER
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-The: Sydneys):
1. What has been the total amount of the assistance that has been made available to the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia by the federal government in the province's take-over of the steel industry on Cape Breton Island, have these monies been paid to the government and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What arrangements have been made by the federal government to turn over the federal government's rights to certain loans made to the Dominion Steel and Coal Company for the construction of dock loading facilities at Sydney, Nova Scotia?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. $9.9 million, of which $2 million has been paid to the government of Nova Scotia. The remainder consists of (a) direct payments to the steel company; (b) turning over to the province of rights to loans made to the former owner.
2. Final arrangements to take up the federal offer are now under discussion with the province.

December 11, 1968
Questions
TAX ADVANTAGES THROUGH EXPORT SALES Question 547-Mr. Sallsman:
Have any companies requested and received tax advantages on the basis that most of its product is sold outside Canada and, if so, what are the companies and what tax advantages have been accorded?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Under the authority of the Customs and Excise Tax Acts, and regulations thereunder, drawback or repayment may be made of 99 per cent of customs duties and excise and/or sales taxes paid on imported goods and materials used or directly consumed in, wrought into or attached to any articles manufactured or produced in Canada and exported therefrom. There are some 9,500 firms in Canada directly or indirectly involved in the import and re-export of goods and which normally qualify for drawback of duties and taxes under this authority. The names of these firms are not published.
Remissions of customs duties and, on certain occasions of sales taxes, have been made under the authority of Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act in respect of machinery and equipment for use primarily in the production of goods for export. Remission of duties has also been extended in certain instances to materials for use in the manufacture of goods produced in Canada exclusively for export. The Financial Administration Act requires that a statement of each remission of $1,000 or more granted under Section 22 of the Act, must be reported to the House of Commons in the Public Accounts.
In respect of tooling, machinery parts or accessories supplied by a prime contractor abroad to a Canadian manufacturer under the terms of a subcontract to produce goods for export, there is a standing provision under the authority of Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act for remission of the customs duty and excise taxes in excess of those payable on one-sixtieth of the value of the goods for each month that the goods remain in Canada. Remissions under this authority in excess of $1,000 are reported in the Public Accounts.


C.B.C. TELEVISION, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the CBC made application to the Canadian Radio Television Commission for a licence to operate a television station in Saskatchewan and, if so, what is the current position of this application?

2.	Does the CBC hold an option for the purchase of a television station in Saskatchewan and, if so (a) what is the name of the station (b) when does the option expire?
3.	What other plans does the CBC have for television facilities in Saskatchewan?
Kon. John C. Munro (Acting Secretary of
State): I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes. An application for a C.B.C.-owned outlet in Saskatoon is being held in abeyance at the request of the corporation pending the outcome of negotiations for the sale of CHAB-TV Moose Jaw and CHRE-TV Regina.
2.	No. C.B.C. is negotiating for the purchase of CHAB-TV Moose Jaw and CHRE-TV Regina.
3.	These are subject in part to the outcome of the Regina-Moose Jaw negotiations but it is hoped to extend the English language service to other parts of the province including a C.B.C. outlet at Saskatoon. The broadcasting needs of French speaking Canadians across the country have been the subject of a major study by C.B.C. during the current year. The final report is now being assessed with a view to further extension of the French language service to groups not presently served, including those in Saskatchewan.


ENTRY OF STOKELY CARMICHAEL
Mr. Coaies: 1.	Was the recent visit of Stokely Carmichael sponsored by any organization in Canada and, if so, what is the name of that organization?
2.	On what basis was Stokely Carmichael allowed to enter Canada, were any limits placed on his travels in this nation or any time limit on the period he might remain in this country?
3.	Did the government have the option of either allowing Stokely Carmichael to enter Canada or to remain outside and if this option were available, what reasons can the government give for allowing him to enter Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes. Mr. Carmichael came to Canada to address the Congress of Black Writers conference which was sponsored by the Caribbean Students Society of McGill University and organized by the Congress of Black Writers committee.
2.	Mr. Carmichael was allowed to enter Canada as he is not deemed to be within the classes of people prohibited admission under the Immigration Act. In such circumstances, the act compels the examining officer to grant entry. This was done for the period October 13 to 16. No restrictions were placed on his travels in Canada by immigration authorities.
3.	No. See answer to question two.
December 11, 1968


PAINTING OF FEDERAL BUILDING, STELLARTON, N.S.
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	Were public tenders called for the painting of the Federal Building at Stellarton, Nova Scotia and, if not, what firms or individuals were asked to tender for this work?
2.	To whom has the contract been awarded, and what is the amount of same?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No. Tenders were invited from the following:	Martin Cameron, Pictou, N.S.,
John Andrews, New Glasgow, N.S., Kimbal Lucas, New Glasgow, N.S., Parker Bros. Ltd., Halifax, N.S.
2. A contract was awarded to Kimbal Lucas, October 23, in the amount of $2,455.


INDIAN CHIEFS AND COUNCILLORS
Mr. Stanfield: 1.	As of October 1, 1968, how many Indian Chiefs were there who are recognized as such by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs?
2.	Of these, how many were in full, part-time
or	casual	employment by	the	Government	of
Canada, or any federal agency or Crown corporation?
3.	As of October 1, 1968, how many Indian persons held office as councillors or other elected officials in Indian Bands in Canada?
4.	Of these, how many were in full, part-time
or	casual	employment by	the	Government	of
Canada or any federal agency or Crown corporation?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. 531.
2.	76.
3.	1,786.
4.	191.


STUDIES BY CONSULTANTS, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Since the Department of Manpower and Immigration was established, how many consultant firms have been awarded contracts to conduct studies within the Department?
2.	(a) What was the name and address of each consultant firm which has received contracts from the Department of Manpower and Immigration since the Department was established (b) what has been the total payment made to each firm to date?
3.	How many of each consultant's recommendations have been adopted by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to date and what are the names of the firms making the recommendations adopted?
Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Five.
2.	(a) Hickling and Johnson Limited, 120 Avenue Road, Toronto 5, Ontario, (b) $6,115.62; Operations Research Incorporated, Silner Springs, Maryland, U.S.A., $98,658.88; Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, 4 King Street, West, Toronto 1, Ontario, $24,000.00; Operations Research Industries, 151 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario, $162,649.78; Belanger, Ouellette and Associates Inc., 1224 West Ste Catherine, Montreal 25, Que., $37,112.83.
3.	Hickling and Johnson Limited, 19; Operations Research Incorporated, 1; Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, final report not received; Operations Research Industries, recommendations being considered; Belanger, Ouellette and Associates, recommendations being considered.


&quot;DIRECTORY OF CANADIAN EMPLOYERS&quot;
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): 1.	To how many persons engaged in post graduate study or research outside Canada was the publication "A Directory of Canadian Employers" distributed?
2.	Are all of these persons Canadian citizens?
3.	What was the cost of circulation of the booklet?
4.	What was the purpose of the circulation of the booklet?
5.	What other programs are designed to encourage Canadian citizens, who are engaged in post graduate study or research outside of Canada, to return to Canada to pursue their careers?
6.	What programs of financial assistance are available from the Government of Canada to Canadian citizens engaged in post graduate study of research outside of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The "Directory of Canadian Employers" was mailed to 2650 Canadians in post graduate study or research outside Canada.
2.	All those in receipt of the directory identified themselves as Canadian citizens.
3.	The cost for printing and circulating the booklet was $3,500.
4.	The purpose of the circulation was to assist Canadian students at foreign universities investigate employment opportunities at home. This was to ensure that these highly qualified individuals would have the same opportunity of being considered for vacant positions as Canadian students at home.
5.	The program, "Operation Retrieval" is designed to encourage Canadian students abroad to return to Canada upon completion of their studies. My department provides

December 11, 1968
Questions
them with labour market information. At major universities in the United States where there is a sizeable number of Canadian students, additional information on employment opportunities is provided by visiting teams. These teams are comprised of representatives of Canadian universities, the Public Service Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration.
6.	Financial assistance is available to Canadians engaged in post graduate study or research outside Canada through the National Research Council and the Canada Council. Although there is no single program of federal aid to all graduate students in all fields, many departments of the federal government offer awards to graduate students who are engaged in an area of study which is related to their particular interests.


PRESS RELEASES, MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?
Answer: 1. Yes; since 1 July 1968, a total of 7 press releases have been issued.
2.	(a) $77.60; (b) $3.23; (c) $44.07; (d) $98.76; (e) 1040.74.
3.	(a) No. 7 bond, white, 32M; (b) 23688 sheets were used at a cost of $97.73.
4.	The estimated number of manhours consumed in preparation was 99; in production was 25J; and in distribution was 20.


HIGHWAY AND BRIDGE TOLLS, EASTERN TOWNSHIPS
Mr. Beaudoin: Has the government received from Chambers of Commerce and other intermediary bodies, especially
[Mr. MacEachen.l
in the Eastern Townships, representations regarding abolition of tolls on the Eastern Townships Autoroute and the Champlain Bridge and, if so, what is its policy in this regard?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: In so far as the Champlain bridge is concerned, representations have been received for the abolition of tolls on that bridge and such representations are carefully studied. No change in the present policy of Champlain bridge tolls assessment is contemplated at this time.


*ROCK ISLAND, QUE.-PROTESTS AGAINST NEW POST OFFICE
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the government received protests from the Mayor and other citizens of Rock Island, Quebec, protesting the construction of a new post office, on the grounds that it is not needed and is an unnecessary expenditure?
2.	If so, does the government intend to go ahead with the construction?
3.	Has it entered into an option for the purchase of, or has land been purchased, upon which the said post office is to be located and, if so, at what price?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the new post office?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part of this question is yes. Several written protests have been received from citizens of Rock Island.
The answer to part 2 is that the matter has been reopened and a new study is now under way.
The answer to part 3 is no.
The answer to part 4 is that it is not applicable.
Although the right hon. gentleman is not present today, I would nevertheless apologize for the delay in answering this question.


WINTER WORKS EXPENDITURES, TEMISCAMINGUE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	How much did the federal government spend through its Winter Works Program in the federal constituency of Temiscamingue in each of the years from 1962 to 1968 to date?
2.	How much was spent in each municipality during these same years?
December 11, 1968

Questions

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of	
Manpower and Immigration):	1.
Program	Federal Contributions
Year	$
1961-62	225,129.10
1962-63	475,199.43
1963-64	605,360.92
1964-65	467,014.87
1965-66	360,955.09
1966-67	248,054.69
1967-68 to November 25, 1968	145,756.25
(some claims are outstanding)
2.
Municipality	Federal Contributions 1961-62 to Nov. 25, 1968 (some claims are outstanding) $
Anglie'^s	43,425.06
Arntfield	23,149.14
Beaudry	106,144.63
Bellecombe	11,372.23
Belleterre	8,933.66
Cloutier	58,203.15
Dubois	10,870.95
Duhamel Ouest	19,066.92
Evain	104,821.61
Fugereville	53,497.30
Granada	34,175.54
Guerin	53,333.03
Laforce	39,848.65
Laniel	1,185.05
Latulipe et Gaboury	85,596.25
Lorrainville	52,903.53
Moffet	71,263.87
Montbeillard	39,379.05
Nedelec	164,588.88
Noranda	179,663.79
Notre Dame de Lourdes de	
Lorrainville	86,397.10
Notre Dame du Nord	55,756.60
Remigny	78,851.82
Rollet	136,142.61
Roulier	36,055.71
Rouyn	491,116.34
Ste Agnes de Bellecombe 67,151.31	
St. Bruno de Guigues	91,149.74
St. Edouard de Fabre	61,054.22
St. Eugene de Guigues	33,802.18
St. Isidore	50,180.51
St. Placide de Bearn	52,904.89
Ville Marie	123,936.91
Winneway	1,518.12


WINTER WORKS EXPENDITURES, BEAUCE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Rodrigue: Since the commencement of	the Winter Works
Program, what amounts were	provided for each
of the parishes and cities within the constituency of Beauce?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1958-59 to Nov. 28, 1968 (some claims are outstanding)	
Municipality	$
Aubert Gallion	35,379.33
Beauceville	11,873.74
Beauceville East	124,541.55
Lac Poulin	11,045.78
L'Enfant Jesus	10,781.42
Liniere Notre Dame de la	26,347.02
Providence	23,163.90
St. Alfred	114,246.19
St. Anges	98,470.17
Ste Aurelie	19,993.25
St. Benjamin	103,835.96
St. Benoit de Labre	254,702.22
St. Come de Kennebec	167,609.59
St. Edouard de Frampton 43,977.01	
St. Elzear	26,311.82
St. Elzear de Beauce	118,569.50
St. Ephrem de Beauce	188,076.39
St. Ephrem de Tring	22,065.53
St. Frangois de Beauce	152,701.39
St. Frangois West	110,138.00
St. Frederic	139,240.10
St. Gedeon (village)	62,448.06
St. Gedeon (parish)	141,904.12
St. Georges	804,015.58
St. Georges East	245,926.51
St. Georges West	456,452.65
St. Hilaire de Dorset	81,515.27
St. Honore	164,612.16
St. Jean de la Lande St. Joseph de Beauce	136,605.91
(town) St. Joseph de Beauce	113,358.84
(parish)	162,371.36
St. Joseph des Erables	88,917.58
St. Jules	134,910.24
Ste Marie (parish)	155,921.97
Questions

December 11, 1968
1958-59 to
Nov. 28, 1968 (some claims are outstanding) Municipality	$
Ste Marie (town)
St. Martin
St. Odilon de Cranbourne St. Philibert St. Prosper St. Rene
St. Robert Bellarmin
St. Severin
St. Simon les Mines
St. Theophile
St. Theophile de la Beauce
St. Victor
St. Victor de Tring
St. Zacharie (village)
St. Zacharie (W.D.) Shenley Tring Jonction Vallee Jonction
43,125.05
138,910.80
93,428.03
69,900.46
283,925.40
79,407.53
112,807.05
84,324.07
64,361.98
43,840.95
57,329.44
65,879.74
177,393.59
13,333.90
65,575.11
38,574.41
196,986.64
22,582.59


HARBOUR AND AIRFIELD IMPROVEMENTS, GEORGIAN BAY AREA
Mr. Noble: 1.	Does the federal government intend giving prompt attention to improving Collingwood outer harbour so that larger ships may make use of the dry dock facilities?
2.	Does the government contemplate building any ships in the foreseeable future on which shipyards in the Great Lakes area might be given an opportunity to tender?
3.	Has the government any plans for the establishment of an airfield in the Eastern Georgian Bay area?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works, Defence Production and Transport as follows:
1.	Preliminary engineering investigations have been made and studies are continuing into the economic aspects of this major project. No decision has yet been reached.
2.	Yes.
3.	No.


Mr. Caouelte: What amounts have been given to each of the provinces in aid to specialized technical schools since the setting up of such program?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Federal Capital Grants Toward Provincial Vocational Facilities As of September 30, 1968
Total
Province	Payments $ 22,358,946
Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	2,725,196
Nova Scotia	23,433,445
New Brunswick	9,499,178
Quebec	203,427,234
Ontario	316,165,512
Manitoba	17,883,911
Saskatchewan	25,410,762
Alberta	73,829,345
British Columbia	51,054,755


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many children in Canada receive Family Allowances?
2.	Does the government intend to increase the amount of Family Allowances and to extend them to students as well?


Hon. John Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 6,884,212 as of October, 1968.
2. If the Government decides to propose an increase in Family Allowances rates, it will be announced in the usual way. With respect to students, allowances are payable, under the federal Family Allowances Program, for children under 16 and thus students are included. The Youth Allowances Program provides for an allowance for young people aged 16 and 17 who are students or who are prevented from attending school by a physical or mental disability. The federal Youth Allowances Program does not operate in Quebec but similar payments are made by the Quebec Government and the Federal Government reimburses Quebec for the cost of such payments.


DISTRIBUTION OF STATEMENT ON ESTIMATES BY LABOUR MINISTER
Mr. Nielsen: 

Department of Labour Estimates Fiscal Year 1968/69 to the House of Commons Committee on Supply November 21, 1968" issued by the Information Services of the Department of Labour?
2.	How many copies were produced, to whom was distribution made and, what was the cost of production of one copy?
3.	(a) Does the text differ in any material respect from the statement of the Minister of Labour on presenting the estimates of his Department on Thursday, November 21, 1968, in the Committee of Supply as recorded in Hansard, pages 3014 to 3018 inclusive (b) if material differences do exist what is the explanation therefor?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. $365 (Queen's Printer charges for time, plates and stock.)
2.	3,565 copies. Distribution:	Daily and
weekly press, independent journalists, 1,205; Labour publications, union officials, 220; Press gallery (Ottawa), 154; M.P.'s and Senators, 600; Federal government departments and agencies (e.g. U.I.C., Manpower Centres, etc.), 556; Provincial government, labour departments, etc., 63; General business and industry, 546; Universities and industrial relations institutes, 72; Total, 3,416. Unit cost of production-10 cents.
3.	(a) and (b) Text contains no material difference except pages 14 to 16 dealing with the vote structure were not included in the minister's statement in the house because every member of the Committee had a printed copy of the revised estimates 1968-69 before him; the vote structure and other financial implications referred to in the text were self evident from the printed estimates.


PRESS RELEASES, INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils
(c)	mimeographing or other form of duplicating
(d)	collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?
Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes-
104.
2.	(a) $435 approximately; (b) Nil-Stencils are not used. Releases are printed by off-set process directly from a repro-copy; (c) and (d) $3,205.55 approximately; (e) The addressing process is done in one location for the whole department. Addressing releases is only a small part of this operation and no cost assessment is available.
The department is charged annually by post office for all postage cost on a bulk payment basis. It is not possible to assess the cost of mailing releases. However, releases are distributed by hand to the press gallery and other news media in Ottawa. Cost of this service amounts to $423.
3.	(a) Bond paper No. 7, 16 lbs.; (b) 234,000 sheets-$463.32.
4.	300 hours approximately.


GRANT TO B.C. FOR P.G.E. EXTENSION
Mr. Borrie: 1.	Has the Province of British Columbia been given a grant or subsidy toward extension of the Pacific Great Eastern Railway from Fort St. John to Fort Nelson, British Columbia?
2.	If so, what is the amount of the grant or subsidy?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my answer to part 1 of the question is no, and to part 2 is that it is not applicable.


ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-The: Sydneys):
1.	Who is the member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada designated as the Minister for purposes of the Atlantic Development Act and on what date was such designation, if any, made?
2.	Have any Orders-in-Council relating to the proposed Department of Regional Development, the Department of Forestry and Rural Development and any other departments been passed which in any way affect the operation of the Atlantic Development Board under the provisions of the Atlantic Development Act and, if so, in what manner?
3.	(a) Have any steps been taken, either by way of Order-in-Council or by departmental or inter-departmental action, to alter the direct relationship previously enjoyed between the Atlantic Development Board and the designated Minister (b) has any such action as mentioned above affected the statutory obligations upon the Atlantic Development Board in relation to the Economic Council of Canada (c) has any such action as mentioned above affected the Atlantic Development Board's

December 11, 1968
Questions
independence erf action in discharging any of the statutory obligations laid upon it by virtue of Section 9 of the Atlantic Development Board Act as amended in Chap. 5, 12 Eliz. II, 1963?
4.	Will the Atlantic Development Board continue to be able to make plans, proposals and recommendations and carry out certain works, subject only to approval of the Treasury Board and the Governor-in-Council, or will it, in the future, have to receive approval of the departmental deputy-minister?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to put the present Atlantic Development Fund amounting to some $150 millions in a common pool of funds for the development purposes or will the Atlantic Development Board still have access to this Fund as a separate and distinct entity?
6.	What is the intention of the government in regard to other funds now administered by the Atlantic Development Board-specifically, statutory road money amounting to $55 millions; the Bell Island Fund for housing, etc., of $1,750,000; the special transfer to the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia of $2 millions in connection with the take-over of the DOSCO Steel installation on Cape Breton Island?


Russell Clayton Honey: 1. The Minister of Forestry and Rural Development, 12 July 1968.
2.	No.
3.	(a) No; (b) No; (c) No.
4.	The Atlantic Development Board, under its legislation, does not make submissions to Treasury Board. It makes recommendations to the minister as to submissions. No change has been made in this procedure.
5 and 6. Any changes would be a matter of future legislation.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this is about the fifth time of asking, but I am still looking for answers to my questions about the pensions of retired civil servants. They were filed on September 12. How many more times must I ask?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding the hon. member will have to ask every day until the 15th.


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall do so.

MOTION FOR PAPERS Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notice of motion No. 50?
(Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys).!
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

MOVE OF AIR CANADA BASE FROM WINNIPEG Motion No. 50-Mr. Fortin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all extracts of the minutes of the Board of Directors of Air Canada concerning the move of the maintenance base from Winnipeg to Montreal and of all correspondence exchanged between the government and Air Canada in connection with this matter.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as all members of parliament will appreciate, this motion relates to correspondence that has always been claimed to be privileged, not public documents. The tabling of such items as the minutes of meetings of the boards of directors of crown corporations and correspondence between the government and such crown corporations could create a precedent that would require the production of documents in the future that would interfere with the competitive position of the companies. For these reasons I would ask the hon. member to agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, as it is very difficult to obtain information from crown corporations, I should like to transfer this notice of motion for debate, since I do not accept what the Minister of Transport has just said.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to standing order 47.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the illness of the Prime Minister of Quebec and the report that the government of Quebec is seeking to have the federal-provincial constitutional conference postponed. What is the position of the government of Canada with regard to this reported request from the government of Quebec?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I received from the Prime Minister of Quebec
December 11. 1968	COMMONS
slightly after noon today a telephone call saying that he was in the hospital, and that he was forbidden to leave for some period of time. He asked if we could postpone the federal-provincial conference. I undertook to consult the various premiers and Prime Ministers of the provinces to see if they would agree to such a postponement. I sent telegrams to that effect about an hour ago.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask whether he is giving consideration to the proposal made to him by the National Indian Brotherhood to appoint a task force consisting of Indian people to develop new policies, leaving the development of major responsibilities for Indian matters to the Indian people themselves.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand the question. I wonder whether the hon. member would repeat it?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The question has been discussed among the minister, the Minister without Portfolio and myself, Mr. Speaker. We are not as yet convinced that this would be the most effective way of arriving at a policy which would be to the greatest advantage of the Indians. However, it is a matter that is under consideration.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question. I wonder if I could ask the Prime Minister whether he is giving consideration to recognizing the National Indian Brotherhood as the advisory body to the government on matters pertaining to the Indian people, as proposed by the National Indian Brotherhood.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we consider that the National Indian Brotherhood is a step in the right direction. We encourage the Indians to form provincial associations and we also think that it is advisable for them to have a national association. That is why we invited them to meet here last week and I must say to the hon. members that the meeting with the Indian chiefs was very successful.
DEBATES	3811
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Orlikow: The minister did not answer my question whether the government was giving consideration to recognizing the National Indian Brotherhood as the advisory body on behalf of the Indians in Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course, if we recognize the existence of the National Indian Brotherhood, it is normal that we should wish to consult them as often as possible.
[English}


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Has the government agreed to a request from the National Indian Brotherhood for financial assistance in carrying out community development programs and other activities?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this request was made by the National Indian Brotherhood. We are now considering this suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, as suggested to me last week by the Prime Minister, I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question.
Has Canada received from Russia a note of protest similar to that received by Great Britain in view of the discontinuance of cultural exchanges with Czechoslovakia? If so, what position will the Canadian government take about that note of protest and related comments?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am unaware of any such note of protest having been received, but I will make inquiries.


[Stage Direction]
STEPS TO MEET INCREASE IN COST OF LIVING On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a
December 11, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry question to the Minister of Finance. Since the Prime Minister stated in the house on September 13 that the government's attack on poverty is based on curtailing inflation, and since the latest Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures show that in each of the three months since that time the cost of living has been rising-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -at a steadily accelerating rate-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was just leading into my question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member should have started with a question.


George Harris Hees: I am just getting to it. Does the government expect in the near future to announce its plans for reducing the cost of living, so the Prime Minister's stated objective of fighting inflation and poverty in this country can be proceeded with?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows the government is doing everything within its power to fight inflation and rising costs in this country. In view of what he has just said I am sure the hon. member will support wholly all the budget measures that are now before the house.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister of Finance referring to the increase of $845 million in taxes that the government is imposing on the people-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -as their means of reducing inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that new car prices were a major factor in driving up the cost of living for November, and since the United States labour bureau finds that improvements which raised the prices on new cars by $40 actually cost $1, will the minister initiate now a special inquiry into new car prices in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Winona Grace MacInnis: further supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. Will the minister


consider setting up as soon as the house resumes in January a standing committee on consumer and corporate affairs to which this matter might be referred?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I am prepared to consult with my colleagues on this, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question arising out of the answer given by the Minister of Finance in regard to support for measures that are proposed in his budget. I should like to ask him when he is going to give the house the draft changes in the income tax and succession duty legislation that I requested some time ago, so the house and the country will be in a position to know what they are actually being asked to support.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my hon. friend privately it is a matter of house time. If he would like to pass without debate the succession duty resolution, I would be pleased to present the bill very shortly.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister has considered with his advisers how many years it will take him to close the credibility gap which he admits the government now has.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of asking the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question relating to a question I raised on November 29, in which I asked whether the government was giving any consideration to allowing dryers at country elevators to dry grain that had been purchased by the country elevator companies, and at that time he said he would take this matter up. Are there any definite results from his investigations which he could report on this occasion?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sorry; I did not hear the answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Pas aujourdhui.
December 11. 1968


An hon. Member:: That means nothing's been done.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister taken up this matter with the appropriate people and consulted them on this question, since no damp grain is now moving out of the country elevators? Are dryers at the terminals working on a seven day a week basis yet?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the transport committee, which is composed of the four entities my hon. friend is aware of, is trying to rationalize and regulate the flow from country elevators to terminals so that there will be no bottleneck and so the grain will neither freeze nor heat.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to one that has just been asked and is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will the government allow farmers who are having their grain dried under the emergency program to pay for this by future grain deliveries, or would the federal government absorb part of the cost of drying?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is quite easy for my hon. friends always to be two or three steps ahead of me in suggesting the provision of subsidies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Perhaps if I were on the other side of the house I would do the same thing. We are trying to cope with the situation as it develops. A few months ago hon. members were asking us to pay subsidies on grain which had not then been harvested. It has now been harvested, and we are trying to cope with the situation now that the grain has been harvested. I am willing and eager to look at any suggestions, but the necessary steps will have to be taken as needed and not as suggested by hon. members.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport in reference to the situation whereby the Canadian National does not accept freight or express on week ends for shipment from the province of Prince Edward Island. Will the minister explore
Inquiries of the Ministry with the railway people the possibility of providing storage facilities for perishable goods awaiting shipment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to do that.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of pressure exerted by many financial bodies in Canada, would the minister tell the house whether it is his intention to tax credit unions' revenue on the same basis as other financial organizations in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to determine whether or not this is an urgent question, but it seems to me that it could be put on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he advise the house whether he has requested a report on or an investigation into the level crossing accident yesterday near Kingston, Ontario, involving the turbo train and a truck? Will he also advise whether, before the first running of the train, any study was undertaken to determine whether the route taken by the turbo train and the level crossings were safe? Was it safe for the train to go across this level crossing?


Gerald William Baldwin: Why not refer this to the transport committee?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission is investigating the accident to determine exactly how it happened. I can also advise my hon. friend that advance studies were undertaken with regard to the safety aspects of operating trains at the speeds the turbo trains will travel. Every effort is being made to reduce risks to the maximum possible extent.
December 11, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did the Canadian National take steps to inform the public of the nature of the train and the speeds it will travel at? I ask this question in the light of yesterday afternoon's accident.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The introduction of the train, Mr. Speaker, has been widely advertised. Actually the difference between the speed of the turbo train and the speed of conventional trains is not great. Many conventional trains run over the same route at approximately the top speed attained by the turbo train.
The major difference in operating time between the two cities lies in the rate of acceleration and deceleration, which depends on the weight of the train itself. So there is not very much difference in the operating requirements, although obviously a train running at high speed gives a shorter warning time before level crossings than does one running at a slower speed.


Gerald William Baldwin: A profound observation.



STUDY OF DEVELOPMENTS IN ALASKA AND NORTHERN CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Yesterday I put a question to the Prime Minister on the subject of our petroleum industry. I asked him whether he was meeting with the Premier of Alberta and whether consideration was being given to setting up a special study with reference to new markets for Canadian petroleum. Has the right hon. gentleman met with the premier?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a meeting with the premier this morning. He had requested an interview, and since it was not his expressed intention that the contents of it should be revealed, I prefer not do to do so.
As to the second part of the question, the general subject of petroleum, may I say I have been discussing this with the officials and with the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does my colleague have something to add?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Before I saw the question asked by the hon. member yesterday I had already contacted the chairman of the National Energy Board and had a long conversation with him concerning the kind of

studies which are taking place now in view of recent important developments in Alaska, in particular. He has given me the following report.
The tempo of exploration activities, particularly in the north, has greatly increased over the past few months and industry is actively engaged in numerous studies-
That is their interest.
-relating to possible alternative methods of transporting oil into various markets if its expectation of large, highly productive oil resources prove correct. The impact of these on United States markets now supplied with crude is also being studied by individual oil companies and by consultant and investment analysts. The National Energy Board-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I must interrupt the minister, but it seems to me he is giving the type of information which ought to be given by way of a statement on motions.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I agree with your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but in view of the importance of this industry and the seriousness of the situation, I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to make a statement on motions tomorrow. I should also like to ask him whether anything has been done to provide a proper staff for the chairman or vice chairman of the energy board, since we were told in committee that they were short handed and lacking in funds with which to make the investigation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The President of the Treasury Board said a few days ago he was looking into this, and I impressed on him-it was not necessary but I did it anyway-the seriousness of the situation. With respect to the formation of the committee, I might say there is already an interdepartmental committee which brings together representatives of the National Energy Board and the various departments interested in this question of oil. As to the possibility of making a statement, I hope to make one at an early date.



WHEAT-POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPORT CREDIT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: My
question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the government considering extending its export credit policy to further increase wheat sales?
December 11, 1963	COMMONS


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is a possibility, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary question, in view of the statement by a spokesman for the Canadian Wheat Board to the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union convention in Saskatoon last week that if credit facilities were improved-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question directly and not quote from statements made outside the house.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the minister clarify the situation at an early date?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Now, Mr. Speaker. I said this was a possibility. Before finding out if you should improve your credit facilities you must have a potential market, and we are waiting for such a market before we decide whether to implement the possibility.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday and the day before I directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister concerning extra precautions for air safety regarding Air Canada in view of the slowdown, and the Prime Minister undertook that today the Minister of Transport would answer the question. Is he prepared to do so at the present time? Also, Mr. Speaker, since we are discussing safety may I inquire from the Minister of Transport just how it happened that someone on that turbo train got such a wonderful picture of the accident taking place?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am assured that the slowdown of Air Canada employees will have no effect whatever on the safety of passengers or air crews.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: How about the other part of my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	3815
Inquiries of the Ministry BROADCASTING



MONOPOLY CONTROL OF MEDIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I will obtain information on that subject. I know that recently the study was extended and agreement was reached among Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada for provision of the necessary amounts. However, I do not know when the report may be expected.']
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Some weeks ago in response to a question the hon. gentleman indicated that he would be making a statement on the monopoly ownership or control of broadcasting facilities in Canada. I would like to ask the minister, does he intend to make that statement before Christmas?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated in my reply, the first time the hon. member put that question to me, that we and the C.R.T.C. are working on this very complex matter. I believe I also indicated that I was unable to say exactly when a statement could be made in this regard. However, I believe I may say now, with certainty, that the work will not be finished before the Christmas recess.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: As a supplementary question, would the hon. gentleman inform the house whether he will be incorporating in this statement a reference to the growing monopoly in the ownership of newspapers in Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the matter of press monopolies is only incidental to the work we are now doing. Newspapers would be considered in that perspective only if they are part of an information monopoly with radio and television stations.
While I am on my feet, I would like to refer, if I may, Mr. Speaker, to the question of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday when he inquired about two statements I am said to have made in Winnipeg. I do not know where he got that account, but I made neither of the statements attributed to me which, I believe, prevents them from representing the official position of the government.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
3816	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister advise us whether Canada has been asked by the federal military government of Nigeria to extend the terms of the observer team there. If so, what has been Canada's response?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I indicated that the Canadian government would be very happy to extend the terms of the observers. It is my understanding that they have in fact been extended more or less indefinitely, and we are happy about the situation.


Mr. Fairweather:: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister made representations to Nigeria, having in mind the recommendation made by the committee on external affairs that the observer team look at both sides, both the secessionist and the federal military government side?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our ambassador in Lagos was of course furnished with a copy of this report which I am sure he has passed along to the government as representing the views of the committee, as well as the statement I made on this subject in the house. However, the observer team is to observe the conduct of the federal military government troops, and there are none in Biafra.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, has the minister followed up two specific recommendations in the house committee report, one as to the expansion of the observer team in federal territory, and the second the provision of independent transport facilities for the team?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have made these views known to the federal military government. However, the position at the moment is that the observers are not fully occupied, and the question that had arisen in connection with their activities was whether in fact there was a useful role for them to perform under present circumstances. We urged the government to continue the observer team in existence. We indicated our preparedness to help in any way we could, and the position now is that the observer team is going to be retained. However, so far apparently there has not been a great deal of need for supplementary members or supplementary equipment.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Not supplementary.

DEBATES	December 11, 1968


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Justice. On November 21, as recorded at page 3011 of Hansard, I addressed the following question to the minister:
In view of the alarming statement by an R.C.M.P. spokesman that the hippy world has become an important distribution centre for heroin, a dangerous and rapidly habit forming drug, would the minister inform the house if this matter is now being given his consideration?
At that time the minister said he had this under investigation. Has he a statement to make now?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his usual courtesy in giving me notice that he was going to put this question to me again. We have just received a report in our department from the R.C.M.P. on the use of drugs by young people, and officials of the Department of Justice are currently meeting with officials of the Solicitor General's department and the Department of National Health and Welfare. When we have analysed the facts we will be pleased to give a statement to the house.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbenf (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. A few days ago I asked the minister a question with reference to the incentives provided by the federal government for research and development in the civil sector of our economy as opposed to incentives in the military sector, at which time the minister said it would take too long to answer and offered to discuss this point at any time and place. Would he be prepared some time during the next week or ten days, either at the University of Ottawa or Carleton University-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: -to discuss it in public?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
December 11, 1968	COMMONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamillon-Wenlworlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister request the task force investigating amateur sports to inquire into acts of illegal and unreasonable interference by hockey league executives with the right of young boys throughout Ontario and other parts of Canada to play hockey for teams of their own choice and not be indoctrinated into professional sport?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


[Stage Direction]
ALBERTA-LICENCE FOR RADIO STATION CKUA On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the hon. Secretary of State.
In view of the answer given by the hon. minister to the house on December 5 in which he reaffirmed that licences for educational broadcasting would not be given to the provinces or their agencies, could the minister give us the assurance that nothing will be done to cancel the licence of the CKUA radio station of the University of Alberta, which is operated by the telephone company of the government of Alberta?


Mr. Speaker:: I think this question should be put on the order paper.
{English]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works on the proposals by his department to cabinet in relation to the development of the town site of Churchill. Can the minister say just when these proposals will be passed along to cabinet?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, I would expect that some announcement in respect of our intentions will be made in a very few days indeed.
DEBATES	3817
Inquiries of the Ministry CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he tell the house the outcome of the first meeting of the consumers' advisory council which was held last Monday?
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer
and Corporate Affairs): I can only report, as I am advised by the chairman, that they had a very successful one day meeting, the purpose of which was mainly to organize their activities and procedures for the ensuing meetings. They agreed to appoint a five man committee which would be concerned with organization and to attend to the appointment of a research director and staff. A date was set for the next meeting, which will be the second or third week in February.


James Aloysius McGrath: Will the council study the whole question of rising automobile prices and decreasing warranties which has already been referred to in the house today?


Mr. Basford:: I should make it very clear that this advisory council is neither a regulatory nor an investigative council.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimoulh-Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. May I ask that hon. gentleman when the house may expect to have the first report of the joint federal-provincial study group on the Minas Basin tidal project.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will obtain information on that subject. I know that recently the study was extended and agreement was reached among Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Canada for provision of the necessary amounts. However, I do not know when the report may be expected.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the
December 11, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of National Defence. Could the minister explain why Canadian forces recruiting teams are using hotel accommodation for recruiting purposes at needless cost in areas where there are government armouries with recruiting offices specifically allocated for that purpose?


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



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister advise the house when he expects to table the report of the commission studying the cost of farm machinery?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: I cannot give an indication of when we intend to table the report in the house. I can advise the hon. member that I have asked Dr. Barber for an interim report to be available before the end of this year which would be used as one of the position papers in respect of one of the subjects to be discussed at the national agricultural conference in March.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement that the experience in Saskatchewan illustrates that medicare is absolutely necessary, does this mean that provincial medicare plans with utilization fees are now acceptable to the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a statement, and I would think the question is argumentative. If I am wrong on all counts, the question might be placed on the order paper.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance

concerning international monetary arrangements in view of the uncertainty concerning the health of the arrangements as they now stand. Is the government of Canada putting forward any suggestions regarding further reform of the system relating to international currencies?


Edgar John Benson: Representatives of the government of Canada have been and are constantly in touch with representatives of the Group of Ten concerning matters such as this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But is the government of Canada taking any position, for example, with regard to the question of the fixed parity exchange? Is the government of Canada putting forward any position or is it simply engaging in consultations?


Edgar John Benson: The government of Canada is in no way considering a floating exchange rate.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, December 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield, (p. 3762).
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the
Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, at ten o'clock last evening I was putting before the house some information with regard to the business of the house in this session and particularly in the coming part of the session. I mentioned that because of the slow progress on the legislative program of this session, a slowness produced by an inability to obtain effective agreement from the opposition on time for the measures needed this autumn, the house is now faced with some 40 bills, many of them of a very fundamental character, with about 80 days for legislative business between the resumption of the sittings in January and the end of June.
Last night the Prime Minister mentioned the closure of neglect and the closure of exclusion. I think it is fair to raise the question, is this what the opposition has in store for much of the legislative program of this year and, cumulatively, for the years to come? From these figures, 40 bills and 80 days, it must be clear that a very difficult problem
December 11, 1968
[Stage Direction]
of timing is confronting the house. If the opposition wishes to be responsible about the legislative work, they will have to sit down with us and participate in some of the hard choices involved in deciding how each item will be dealt with and over what period.
While his leader yields to the temptation to mock references to the British experience, I notice that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is ready to refer to that experience and particularly to the institution of "usual channels". He is perfectly correct in doing so. It is true that in the British house a great deal of consultation takes place through usual channels and that the rule of convention is that the second reading debate on a bill almost never takes more than one sitting day. I regret, as he does, that we have not built up a body of custom and co-operation of this kind.
But the hon. member for Peace River did not explain to us that since 1881, despite this body of custom and co-operation, the British house has used government timetables for passing bills. In referring to government timetables I might remind members of the house that this, of course, is not closure. The closure rule has also been used at Westminster and, I think, often dozens of times in a single session. Government timetables for passing bills have been used for almost 100 years. For example, from 1900 to 1913 it was used for 25 bills. From 1919 to 1932 it was used for 12 bills. From 1945 to 1967 it was used for 19 bills. Indeed, the British select committee on procedure in 1967, after discussing voluntary or co-operative arrangements, reported to the house that:
Until there is greater experience in the making of voluntary agreements, your committee consider that governments should continue to rely on the traditional form of guillotine when there has been no agreement reached.
That is from the report of July 4, 1967, page x. Obviously in the House of Commons at Westminster they are not entirely happy with the government timetable procedure. The procedure has at least two obvious defects. We tried to overcome these in the proposed standing order 16A. The first criticism is that the debate on the government motion to adopt a timetable on a controversial bill lasts for a sitting day and the debate is regarded by many members as boring and repetitious. In 1967 they cut the debate to two hours. The second criticism is that there is no formalized consultation with opposition spokesmen before the government timetable is submitted to the house.
Motion for Concurrence in Report
Under the proposed standing order 16A the government would not be able to put forward a timetable motion until the proceedings committee had met. This at the very least would permit the spokemen of opposition parties to make their views fully known before the government made a proposal to the house. If opposition spokesmen are really worried that clandestine meetings would take place, a gilt-edged notice requirement can be provided. No one on this side was so machiavellian as to think that it would be good politics to hold clandestine one man meetings of a four party committee.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
A good deal has been said about the quorum. I appreciate hon. gentlemen raising the question, and I think it is a fair question to raise. It should be perfectly obvious that parties would be tempted to emasculate standing order 16A by simply staying away from the meetings. We all know what happened to a previous standing order of this house, standing order 15A, because a Conservative representative decided to boycott the meetings. The proposed standing order 16A therefore provides a disincentive to the boycotting of a committee of this house.
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Oh, come on!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) can make a speech on this matter if he wishes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre criticized the requirement for unanimity in this committee. He would prefer to have the committee decide by a majority. He even invoked the British North America Act, section 49, as authority for that proposition. We all know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a great author of red herrings on various procedural subjects in the house. But surely last night we observed the very best of his performances in this regard when we were privileged to see a veritable whale of a red herring.
Let us remember that the proposed committee would not be a committee of the members of this house. It would not reflect the strength of the parties. It would be a committee of the parties, with each party, the smallest like the largest, represented by one member. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would put the government in the position where it could not propose a timetable to the house unless it carried a
December 11, 19G8

Motion for Concurrence in Report majority in a committee in which the government would always be in a minority. All this he proposes in the name of section 49 oi the British North America Act.
What we are really being told is that there should be some kind of a committee and that if the committee did not come up with a timetable the government would be permitted to do nothing. I wonder whether those opposite who have taken on the responsibility of leading the parties in the house have thought through what kind of pressure that kind of arrangement would put them under. Members would come to them and say, "There is no reason why you should agree to anything in the proceedings committee. If you take a tough stand, we will be able to speak as often as we want and the government will be able to do nothing about it." In that situation either the house leaders would change at a fast rate or the committee would amount to nothing.
We have heard solemn assurances from the Leader of the Opposition and from speakers from other parties on that side of the house that never will there be obstruction to reasonable actions. This is what they say. But what are reasonable actions? They will decide. They will veto decision by this house.
These solemn assurances are made to us again and again. I must say, however, that I can see no reason why I should give any greater credence to those assurances than the Leader of the Opposition insists he gives to my assurances. I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition would admit candidly that he cannot see any reason either.
What is being asserted is really very simple. It is that the opposition knows best. It is that they have an inalienable right to prevent the house reaching decisions they may not like.


An hon. Member:: That is not right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member agrees with that.


An hon. Member:: No. I said that is not right.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been in the past men in the opposition who have made such assertions. I think perhaps we would be best guided if we again read section 49 of the British North America Act. It reads:
Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a majority of voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a vote.

I suggest that this provision should be the basis for deciding any programming of the business of this house.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would say a few words about the proposed amendment. I note with interest that the Leader of the Opposition has made no effort in the amendment to deal with the government's right to make a motion on its own. His proposed amendment deals only with motions to accept the decisions of the procedure committee, such decisions being, by the definition of the standing order, those which are unanimous. He does not deal in the amendment with our proposal that after consultation the government can introduce its own motion. The only change he of the meetings of the committee on would propose is that there should be notice procedure.
My first reaction to this amendment is one to which I have given expression, namely, that indeed this was not raised and dealt with in the special committee on procedure. This seems to be a reasonable suggestion. It seems to me that if that be the only objection hon. members opposite would make to standing order 16A, it bears very serious consideration, and I would agree that the amendment is a very tempting one to vote for.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yield to temptation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before terminating my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate if I made some reference to the assistance that was available to the special committee on procedure. In particular I refer to the many long hours and hard work put in by the secretary of the committee, Mr. Philip Laundy, who was ably assisted by Mr. Michael Kirby. Able assistance was also provided under great pressure by Mr. Gordon Dubroy and his colleagues at the table. I think all hon. members would agree with me that we are much indebted to them for their services to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my own appreciation, and take this opportunity of so doing, to one of our former colleagues in the house who I think it would be acknowledged in all corners of the house has an encyclopaedic knowledge of the procedures of the house and a great grasp of the parliamentary system. I am referring to the former member for Antigonish-Guysborough, Mr. John Stewart. I would like to express my
December 11, 1S68

thanks for his contribution and services, not only to me in my role in the committee, but to parliament generally and the cause of reform of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in opening my remarks this afternoon I want to in many ways re-echo the opening words at least of the chairman of the committee on procedure, the hon. member for Grenviile-Carleton (Mr. Blair). As vice-chairman of the committee I think I can also echo the closing remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) with regard to the staff and assistance we received in the committee. I particularly want to underline the remarks of the hon. member for Grenviile-Carleton with regard to the spirit of harmony that prevailed in the committee.
As the hon. member indicated, and I reiterate his statement, it has been said that the committee concluded its deliberations in wild disagreement, but someone must have been under the strong influence of opium, or whatever it was, to say this and must have been looking for sensationalism. Of course there was disagreement on some principles. There was serious discussion. There was a great deal of consensus. There were proposals and counter-proposals, and we agreed to disagree on certain fundamental points. The opposition lined up on one side and the government on the other. There were lesser disagreements with regard to supply, and other disagreements with regard to emergency procedures. But anyone who suggests there was wild disagreement is saying what is very far from the truth. Indeed, the representatives on the committee of members of parliament in all parties in the house were concerned with the efficient operation of this house, our house, not the government's house but the house of the members of parliament. This concerns all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Therefore representatives of all parties have indeed a vested interest to see that we work out the best possible rules. I would say that within the limitations of our respective interests and our respective views, this has likely come about.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
This report is not in any way a government blueprint of what it considers the rules to be, except for a couple of very fundamental points
Motion for Concurrence in Report which have already been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Stanfield), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last night. We know now what the issues are in regard to the fundamental parts of these reports. The points of major departure are the elimination of the committee of supply and the allocation of the time of debate or otherwise by direction of the government, not only in the house but in committee as well. I will come back to that point later. Provision 16-A is not limited to proceedings in this house, and therefore any statements by the Prime Minister or other representatives of the government that this is going to give much greater freedom to the private member to discuss in committee either legislation or estimates are a fallacy. Why is that so? Because the government house leader, under the conditions of provision 16-A, has the right to dictate to this house by way of a government order how long proceedings may take in committee, either on legislation or in supply, inasmuch as the proposed standing order states "every item".
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the one place where the government house leader has no place-as a matter of fact this house really has no place-is in the committees because it is said that a committee is the master of its own proceedings. In fact you, Mr. Speaker, and I when I occupied your chair, have refused to intervene in the proceedings of the committees because the chairman is supreme there. The committee is the master of its own proceedings, and yet under rule 16-A there is a subterfuge that the government, through its house leader, can interpose and will interfere.
I say further that Mr. Speaker has, from time immemorial, categorized himself as being the servant of this house and the servant of the members of this house as expressed through the rules of this house which protect the privileges of members and their rights and obligations as against each other, the rights and obligations of the opposition versus the government, and vice-versa. However, if we take government imposed rules this means that Mr. Speaker does not become the servant of this house but instead becomes the servant of the government, and that is a denial of our democratic form of government. That is why I maintain that the principle of government imposed rules which go down to the fundamental points that these do are wrong because Your Honour's position has been placed in jeopardy as the result of these proposals. You are no longer the arbiter of
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report the rules of this house but instead you are the arbiter of the rules as put forward by the government, and that, I say, is quite wrong.
Having occupied the position that you now so well occupy, Mr. Speaker, I should like to approach the question of rules on the basis of certain general principles. First of all, our system of responsible parliamentary democracy means that the Prime Minister and his cabinet are responsible to parliament and, as part of parliament, to this house. Neither parliament nor this house is to be a mere tool of the cabinet or at the beck and call of cabinet. If anyone wanted to talk about the reform of the parliamentary system I would say to him, let us curtail the power of cabinet and restore power to the members of this house. This is what has been the big problem.
If hon. members would bother to acquaint themselves with what has been going on at Westminster and what is the attitude of the private member there, they would see what I mean. There has been an outrageous growth of cabinet power vis-a-vis parliament. It has now become the mere tool of the cabinet. Let us look at recent writings on the subject of Westminster such as "the legislative process in Westminster" by Mr. S. A. Walkland and a book by Mr. Berkeley, a former member of the British House of Commons, which describe what has happened over there. Yet in a half-digested way we are being asked to pick and choose from the system at Westminster after what I would call shallow and unconsidered thinking has been given to some of the procedures that apply over there.
Second, proceedings in this house must be so conducted that the rights of all hon. members as representatives of the people who elected them and as individuals are protected with scrupulous impartiality and that all members stand before you, Mr. Speaker, as equals, with certain limited exceptions provided for in our rules. These usually have to do with the amount of time that one is allotted in particular debates.
Third, in this house the government has certain rights which must be recognized and protected. A government cannot be forever held at bay and constantly harried and thwarted from fulfilling its recognized task and its responsibility of governing. Having such responsibilities, however, it cannot possess unbridled licence to ride roughshod over the rights of members who are not part of the government. Again I would like to point out to hon. members opposite that outside of those members of the Privy Council they are not members of the government but

are government supporters. The government consists of the members of the cabinet, and all others opposite are private members who possess rights which must be protected. Members sitting in opposition to the government have their undeniable rights which cannot be trampled upon, but in possessing those rights let us recognize that they too have responsibilities toward one another and toward the government.
Fourth, these rights and responsibilities are to be recognized in our rules of procedure wherein they may be enshrined. Such rules must be readily understandable to hon. members-I would hesitate to say they must be understandable by the Chair-and they must lend themselves to effective and ready application by the Chair.
In devising our rules the house must provide you, Mr. Speaker, with an acceptable task. When Mr. Speaker is elected he is asked to accept a charge which must not be impossible. It is the duty of the members of this house collectively to furnish the Chair with effective, workable rules. The Speaker must not be placed in an impossible position. Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, this is not always recognized. All too often procedural proposals are made without thinking or unthinkingly of the consequences as they affect the Chair.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I wish to re-emphasize the opening remarks of the Leader of the Opposition, in particular when he said we are now considering a fundamental issue, perhaps the most fundamental of all, the right of parliament to control itself and in so doing to control the government. I come back again to the theory that in the parliamentary form of democratic government which we enjoy the Prime Minister and the cabinet are responsible to parliament, not parliament responsible to the cabinet. However, in the eyes of the technocrat it all too often appears that legislatures are obstacles to good government. Efficiency, measured by the technocrat himself, is the underlying standard. Critical questioning, alternative proposals and even dissent itself are not acceptable to the technocratic philosophy of government. As my leader said yesterday, we must never dismiss the importance of debate. In so saying we do not subscribe to unlimited debate merely for the sake of debate, merely for frustrating the effective working of parliament. Debate must provide for the adequate discussion of any proposal that is made in this house.
December 11, 19G8	COMMONS
I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members that the words "adequate discussion" really are the point at issue. What is adequate discussion? I think this underlies the closing remarks of the government house leader today, and it pretty well underlies all the discussion we have heard to date. Now, the government may feel that anything beyond token debate or statements of position by representative speakers is more than enough. I suspect that this is the philosophy of this government in its determination to program the business of the house as it proposes in the present changes before the house.
Of course, government supporters are totally ignored in these proposals, notwithstanding the hopeful but regrettably naive assertion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton yesterday. Their position is totally ignored by the government. It will be affected just as much as that of hon. members opposite because I would put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a move in the struggle between the cabinet and the house for the control of what is parliament. Every time there has been more than a mere tinkering with the rules, this has been the case.
Let us go back to 1955 when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was a member of this house. He will tell you-


John Napier Turner: When wasn't he a member?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: From 1958 to 1962.


Stanley Howard Knowles: was in the gallery, watching.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He will agree that the changes in 1955 resulted in a considerable shift in favour of the cabinet against the rights of individual members and a further curtailment of debate. Now we get to the ultimate this afternoon when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) indicated that he would like to recommend, and I am not telling tales out of school, that second reading last one day. It would not matter how controversial the bill; we could have a day. On his basis of thinking, a subject like medicare would be debated for one day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
the omnibus bill?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is difficult to determine just what is the principle of
DEBATES	3823
Motion for Concurrence in Report that bill, but certainly according to his thinking one day would be sufficient to debate the omnibus bill. What becomes then of the distribution of membership in this house? One cannot foresee that it may be fundamentally changed for some time. The position of the parties may be changed, but the point is that we are not making rules for just this year or next year. These are supposed to be permanent changes. What does that mean? Does it mean there will be merely position statements, one by a government spokesman, one from the opposition, one from the third party and one from the fourth party? If there were time left over we possibly could get in a few contributions more. Is that debate, Mr. Speaker? We might as well file these statements. Why does the government house leader even suggest we have second reading? As I have said, the government now feels that anything beyond a token debate or a statement of position by representative speakers is more than enough.
That power-I call it almost unbridled licence-given the government house leader by the proposed standing order 16A not only governs proceedings in this chamber but I warn hon. members opposite and emphasize to them that rule 16A reaches right down into committees. I do not know what the two hour debate is going to do, if the government house leader makes a proposal that contains any number of items that are unacceptable to the house leaders of other parties. In other words, the proposals could be outrageous, and designedly so if I want to ascribe to him the ultimate motive, not only with regard to several items of legislation but every item before the committees. We are to have a two hour debate to discuss the pros and cons and then there would be a guillotine, a vote presumably supported by the government members. This is how the business of this house is to be conducted. I call it unbridled licence; it is nothing more than that.
Hon. members must realize just what they are doing, the power they are turning over to the cabinet against themselves by their acceptance of this particular proposal. I think my proposals to the committee went even further with regard to the legislative process for discussion and flexibility by the government. Personally, I prefer the French system of giving notice on the order paper, printing the bill, and the bill going immediately to a standing committee, or to committee of the whole if that is to be its fate, where the bill is to be discussed. Then if any amendments are made either from the government side or
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report the opposition side it is at the report stage that the government either accepts them or rejects them. Alternatively, if in the eyes of the government the bill has been torpedoed, the report stage is regarded as a vote of confidence on the issue on which debate was divided. This is where the cabinet asks itself whether it is responsible and whether the house is going to back it up. In other words, the cabinet is responsible to the house. If the cabinet felt that its proposals did not have the confidence of the house, then it could ask for that confidence.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There has been a via media in that the second reading stage has been de-empha-sized-I will not say downgraded-and I think this may be to advantage. We are all agreed on eliminating the resolution stage, and it will be of immense advantage to eliminate duplication. It is a simple procedure to move amendments to every clause of the bill which would be voted on in the report stage.
It is here, Mr. Speaker, that the government and its advisers have been rather incautious, I would say, in their proposals. Your Honour will have the task of marshaling these amendments and frankly, with the greatest respect, I do not envy you your task. Amendments could be moved to every clause of the bill, and it does not tax the ingenuity of man in this house to fashion them. Therefore, unless the debate is kept very relevant-and Your Honour knows how difficult that is-I wonder what time will be saved.
We agree that marshalling or maximizing our time is the great problem today. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) laid emphasis on this last night, and I agree with him. But is anything going to be gained by this procedure, particularly if the government house leader imposed his weekly closure? Who is going to be so naive as to suggest, since the government house leader is cutting back on second reading, that if amendments line up before Mr. Speaker one after the other the government house leader would not also wish to restrict debate on them? It would amount to weekly closure.
And this house is to be a place for debate, Mr. Speaker? This simply is not inherent in this particular government proposal. This is the most vicious and dastardly attack upon parliament that has ever been perpetrated. Provisional standing order 15 A was bad enough. In fact, it was so bad it was never used. If it is felt that debate has extended too far, then the government must assume its

responsibility. We all know there is a second forum for debate that is not in this house but is in the antechamber where government ministers and the Prime Minister are prone to run to the television camera to do their ministerial second thinking. This sort of discussion is one-sided because no one is there to question them. The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying on television last night that there comes a time in every democratic assembly when debate must come to an end and a decision made. He made that statement here, and no one quarrels with it. But this was the most undisguised red herring that the Prime Minister could ever have dragged up from the bottom of the ocean and brought into this debate. The government just does not have the courage of its convictions. Standing order 33, which under these proposed rules is being continued, was made for this purpose. If the government feels that debate has gone on far too long, then let the government have the courage to bring in closure frontally instead of having the government house leader do it in advance before the debate has even begun.
I agree that closure has to be used if the debate has gone too far, but this can only be ascertained after the debate has got under way, not beforehand. Yet this is what we are faced with. The government house leader has this authority now, and the Prime Minister knows it. In effect, what the Prime Minister is seeking is authority to cut off debate a week before it is commenced in so far as any or all matters on the order paper are concerned, and not only matters on the order paper but also matters before the committees.
Let us suppose that the government had got wind of what had happened in the transport committee and was concerned that it would run into trouble in that committee. They would not have had to put the chairman in hospital or "cut off his head" or "eat him", as they did; all the government house leader would have to say is that the proceedings presently before the transport committee will be brought to an end as of a certain date. Let us say this proposal was made on a Thursday. Once it is voted on he can cut off debate as of the next day, even though the committee may have been going to meet the following Tuesday. That is what is possible under these proposals.
When the Prime Minister makes this fine statement that sounds very impressive, frankly he is just trying to muddy the issue, to distort the facts and to mislead the Canadian people about what is involved here. And I
December 11, 1968
3825'

would say that he is doing that deliberately. I am not infringing any privilege here because this was said on television, not in this house. This picture of distortion was given direct to the Canadian people. As far as the opposition is concerned, the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues are not going to get away with it.
The government has the weapon of closure at its disposal. If the government house leader or the Prime Minister wants to use it, then let them be men enough to say they are going to use closure, instead of resorting to this round-about, hidden way that is being proposed. Let them say that debate has gone on too long; certainly I would prefer that to this. I am sorry for Your Honour if their admiration or partial admiration for the British system is going to make it difficult for you, because they are going to hand to you the power to determine when debate has gone on long enough. That is what your counterpart does in the United Kingdom.
I fully realize Your Honour might not like that. I would have found it most difficult to come to that very difficult decision. But at least closure is not imposed by the government. Mr. Speaker is independent. We want him independent and we want the rules to maintain the independence of Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest deference I suggest that in this field that will not be the case. Having said all this, and I wish to keep my remarks reasonably brief, I must emphasize once again what I have spoken of before. We agree that we must modify our rules to meet changed circumstances. We made many proposals I indicated that some of them are much more radical even than the proposals before us here. We too are concerned with the effective disposal of our time, as was said so well yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. We subscribe to many of the changes. In a general way, and I say "general" because certain hon. members have different appreciations of individual rules, we approve of much of the report.
May I go back, Mr. Speaker, to one of my original points. The rules of this house are the prerogative of this house and not of the government. I rather suspect that the government house leader does not agree with me because this does not agree with his philosophy.
29180-242i
Motion for Concurrence in Report


John Napier Turner: The hon. member has no evidence of that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I can only reply to the Minister of Justice by saying that I base myself on 26 meetings in committee where there was a free interchange of views. The advocacy of the government house leader with regard to certain changes can lead to no other conclusion. In so far as the programming committee and the committee of supply are concerned, Mr. Speaker, these are government imposed changes.
What are we to do with regard to supply? Before I deal with supply perhaps I ought to' make one comment to the government house leader. He indicated that the former hon, member who represented Winnipeg South Centre and was this party's representative on the business committee had boycotted that committee, the implication being that rule 15-A was not effective because of the boycott. That is not factual, Mr. Speaker. There are persons present in this house who were members of that committee and they will attest to that. I know they feel that Hon. Gordon Churchill always attended meetings of the business committee; after all, rule 15-A operated on one or two occasions only. That hon. member fully discharged his responsibilities. It is true that when he was house leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition he and the then government house leader decided to eliminate the meetings of all house leaders generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They did not like us.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will not go into details. There was some problem about confidentiality and that sort of thing. I will let bygones be bygones. But with respect to rule 15-A there is no question that the hon. member then representing Winnipeg South Centre who was our representative on that committee discharged his obligations fully, both in spirit and to the letter of the rule. I therefore say that the government house leader was wrong in the assertion he made earlier this afternoon.
The point I now wish to make with regard to supply is that we do not agree, Mr. Speaker-and here perhaps we part company with my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre-that the committee of supply should be suppressed. This house is not a legislative grist mill; it never was designed to be in the past and will never be in the future. A good
3826	COMMONS
Motion for Concurrence in Report part of the responsibility of this house vis-avis the people and vis-a-vis the government is to exercise the most careful diligence and surveillance over government expenditure. Supply is an integral part of the responsibilities of this house, as is consideration of legislation.
It is the preponderance of a technocratic frame of mind which downgrades supply or the consideration of estimates as against the passage of legislative proposals. Does the government think it is going to cure the ills of the country merely by passing laws? I think not. It would be better in so far as this house is concerned to allow the committee of supply to remain. There is no copyright with regard to this proposal. I do not think every department of government should be examined in detail every year. I think every department ought to have a detailed examination with all officials present not more than once in three years. After all, we must recognize the administrative responsibilities of the officials of these departments and tailor our policy to deal with them intelligently. It is my view that if a department were to go before the related standing committee once in three years for detailed examination, that would be enough. That could be followed up by one stage in this house where there could be for a limited period a general statement, shall we say, about the philosophy or administration of the department. Three years later that department could again be brought before the standing committee for examination.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, every department would come before the committees and before the house. There would be a not so intensive examination of the department and then an intensive examination. That would preserve to this house the right of granting supply and the right of discussion of supply. For that reason we do not think the committee structure as now set up would be adequate. It is going to be a fearsome system. I have had a good deal of experience in committees and I like to see them work. The government is proposing to throw on to a structure that is now only evolving the whole burden of the study of supply and of estimates, plus a great deal of legislation. Before we jump, Mr. Speaker, let us know where we are going to land. Frankly, the committee structure as it now exists is not designed for the task that is being asked of it under these proposed rules.
I close by saying that we give a great deal of support to some of these rule changes. But on the questions of eliminating the committee

DEBATES	December 11, 1968
of supply and the programming committee, there we cry, "Halt."


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, one of the great advantages I have found in our democratic system is that one may make the assumption, no matter what party one belongs to, that the motives of all other hon. members are of the highest in relation to the good of the country and its people. Everyone of us makes that assumption with pleasure about everyone else here. Yet I must admit, in the presence of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), that on the debate in which we are now engaged and on the issues which are now before us I find some considerable difficulty in making that assumption about the insistence of the government to shove down the throat of parliament a particular rule I object to, namely, rule 16 A.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


David Lewis: I have no doubt that many Canadians across the country are puzzled by what is taking place here. They are concerned about many serious problems both at home and abroad and they want to see the government and parliament act on these problems. So do I. So does every member of the opposition parties in this house. So, I am sure, do the members on the government side. I say as I begin my remarks that it is within the power of the government to achieve this objective even now. Any delay as a result of this debate, short or long, is entirely the government's responsibility. That should be made clear, and I hope it will be made clear to the people of Canada by those who carry the responsibility for informing our people in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Why do I say this? I say, Mr. Speaker, that the government could and should have introduced the committee's report without the hooker contained in rule 16A. If it had done that the report could have been passed possibly without debate. Certainly with no more than a few speeches in the house, and parliament could even today be dealing with the problems of the Canadian people and with other problems which affect the people of the world.
It is important to emphasize that according to the information which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave
December 11, 1968	COMMONS
to the caucus of the New Democratic party, the government knew that all the changes proposed, except for two, were acceptable to all parties in this house. The Conservative party had some objection to the supply situation-it was not an adamant objection-and all the opposition parties were opposed to rule 16A as the President of Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) proposed it to the committee. The reason I find some difficulty in keeping to my determination to allow that everyone's motives are of the highest is that the government insisted on introducing rule 16A when it knew that to do so would provoke a long debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: Let me remind you, Mr. Speaker, to emphasize that I am not just throwing words out, that the President of the Privy Council last night gave an assurance, as I am told he indicated to the committee he would, that the government would see to it that a permanent standing committee on procedure and organization would be established and given the opportunity to review the rules we are now debating. Was it not reasonable and civilized to expect that in those circumstances the government would place before parliament a rule 16A in a form which was acceptable to all the parties and which could be given a try for the remainder of this session? And if the hon. gentleman, as government house leader, found it was being abused by the opposition he would then have reason to come before parliament and ask for changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: He sits and laughs.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am trying not to be cynical about the hon. member.


David Lewis: He is trying not to be cynical. Let me tell him that he does not have to try. His behaviour shows that he is cynical in the worst sense of the word. He is cynical about this parliament, about the needs of the Canadian people and about his behaviour in this house.


John Napier Turner: We have been talking about motives and imputing motives-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North wishes to raise a point of order? He has been standing-


John Napier Turner: I am raising a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been
DEBATES	3827
Motion for Concurrence in Report talking about motives and perhaps getting into personalities. I was hoping that the hon. member would stick to the principles we are debating.


David Lewis: I respect the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), as I do all hon. members in this house including the President of the Privy Council, without reservation. If I made any remarks about being cynical they were in reply to a comment which I believe to be completely unjustified. It reminds me of another comment which was made earlier in the day, one which I suggest will not make co-operation easier in this house. The President of the Privy Council referred to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, whom everyone in this house and in the country respects as an honourable man, a man who is concerned to see that parliament functions properly, as a "master of the red herring." Such a remark was, in my view, irresponsible. As I was saying, despite the giggles and interjections of the President of the Privy Council, even now the government can say it is prepared to recommend the report less the hooker in 16A, that it is prepared to try out the new procedure on the basis of agreement for the rest of the session, and if they find it unworkable they will come back next year and seek to change the rule. Surely this is a better way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: If the government is prepared to do that-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which one do you describe as the hooker?


David Lewis: That part of 16A which gives the President of the Privy Council the opportunity to meet by himself and make a decision against the wishes of the other members of the committee and then bring it before this house, relying on the majority which the government has to take away the rights of members should he desire to do so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Is the hon.
member objecting to the quorum provision or to the fact that ultimately the majority of members in the house would decide on the allocation?


David Lewis: Come, now. Like the hon. gentleman I have practised law, and if I have not been in the house for many years I have been in politics for quite a few years, and the minister cannot ask me whether I am going to stop beating my wife and expect a direct
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report answer. I object to everything in rule 16A except that part which deals with agreement with decisions reached by unanimous consent of the entire committee. Really, I am appealing to the government, if it is of any use, to follow the course I am proposing. It has a duty in my estimation to give my suggestion a try for the remainder of the session. See whether the opposition parties will co-operate to make parliament function properly. For our part, we shall agree to a reasonable allocation of time, we shall work with the government to see that the business of this house is accomplished in a proper way and that the committees function in a proper way. I say on behalf of the party which I have the honour to lead in this house that we shall give the government every co-operation to that end, and I should be very surprised if the party which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) leads is not prepared to do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: If the government is willing to accept that challenge, then this debate can end.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Another reason I find it difficult to accept the general proposition about motives in this case, which I stated earlier, concerns something which the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council said. Either these words mean something or they are just words, sand in our eyes and in the eyes of the Canadian people. The Prime Minister said last night:
-if valid arguments for modifying the proposals are made in the debate, we will not feel bound to adhere strictly to those recommendations. We will consider any reasonable proposals put forward for consideration.
How can that be done here? By the procedure which the government has chosen to place this report before the house with Mr. Speaker in the chair we are not permitted to move any amendments other than that the report be referred back to the committee. How then can the government take into account any reasonable proposals? Are we playing games, or are we being honourable with each other? If they are prepared to consider reasonable proposals they must make the next step to create the forum in which those reasonable proposals can be brought forward in negotiation, and consider them. Otherwise these are no more than words.
The President of the Privy Council made a similar statement last night, and I suggest


that statement was no more than words, because if the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council mean what they say, that they are prepared to accept reasonable proposals for change, then to me their duty is simple. They should say they are prepared to send the proposed new rule 16-A back to the committee where those reasonable proposals can be put to them and where they can consider them. Then we can move on with the legislative program that the government has stated it has, and the suggestions made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre can be considered, as well as other suggestions.
There certainly are problems. Unemployment in the country is growing higher. Housing is still a crisis. The western farmers have great difficulties resulting from weather and other causes. Government reorganization is an important matter I would like to learn about. We get shunted from one minister to another without knowing exactly what the new set-up will be in areas like regional development, in areas like communications, in areas like a department of supply or whatever it will be called. It is time we heard about these things, and we are prepared to listen to the government on these issues. These are things that should be done now.
As I have said, if the government were prepared to do what I consider to be-and I am not using these words offensively-the civilized, reasonable thing among people who are trying to make a civilized place of this parliament to deal with modern times, then I suggest the government ought to yield on this one point of sending rule 16-A back to the committee. But obviously, Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to do so.
Like many others in this house I have in the last few years spoken frequently about the need for parliamentary reform. But I reached the precisely opposite conclusion to the one that it seems to me was reached last night by the Prime Minister who gave one of his charming, professorial lectures to the house. What is the problem of this parliament, of other parliaments, if you will permit me to be professorial for a minute or two?


Stanley Howard Knowles: And
charming.


David Lewis: That is not for me to say. It is the problem rising out of a changing social environment, but not of an abstract kind about which the Prime Minister spoke; it is about some of the very concrete things of
December 11, 1968

modern life so far as they relate to the work of parliament.
The problem derives from the fact-I know some hon. gentlemen agree with it and I know that some are not very much in favour of it-that the role of government grows yearly, that the intervention by government in the lives of the ordinary people of the country, indeed in the lives of the ordinary people of the world, grows daily. It derives from the fact that modern society places more and more duties and more and more demands on those who govern the people and on those who legislate on behalf of the people. This is the source of the problem, and the source of the problem is compounded by some other facts that we ought to recognize in a modern legislative situation.
The first of these facts is the power of the civil service. It is a myth that in most cases the laws are drafted by the ministers of the crown. In most cases the laws are drafted by the senior civil servants.


Some hon. Members:: Right.


David Lewis: The role of the government has grown bigger, and within the government the power of the Prime Minister has become pretty nearly unlimited in our modem society.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Horrendous.


David Lewis: As every writer on political science has outlined in dealing with the British, New Zealand, Australian and Canadian systems of government, the Prime Minister of our government has unlimited power. When one talks about the President of the Privy Council making a proposition, he does not make it unless it is approved by the Prime Minister, nor does any other member of the cabinet unless the Prime Minister has approved it. Therefore this problem in parliament derives from these facts, the fact that more and more is demanded of the legislature and of the government, the fact that government intervenes more and more whether one likes it or not, and the fact that the power of the government is concentrated in the hands of the Prime Minister.
The conclusion I reach from those facts is not the conclusion that the Prime Minister reached last night. I must speak very carefully and say he did not state it in these words, but to me he implied that the result of these developments is that parliament should have less power and the government should have
Motion for Concurrence in Report more control over parliament. I say that precisely the opposite conclusion follows if we are to have a meaningful democracy. Precisely because the power of the government is so great, precisely because the power of the civil service is so overwhelming, precisely because power is concentrated in the Prime Minister, it becomes more urgent than ever that parliament continue to have the right to control the acts of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: This surely is the right conclusion. How does parliament control the acts of the government? It is not merely by a vote on a piece of legislation. If you have a majority government that vote is automatic under our system, whether it should be or not. It is automatic, it is there, and the opposition cannot do anything except register its opposition-period. It does not change a thing.
The way in which parliament controls the government under a modern system, with modern communications, is to speak and for our words to be heard by the people of Canada, because the ultimate control is necessarily the vote of the people of the country. Unless the backbenchers of every party, including the government party, have ample opportunity to express their views, to speak on behalf of their constituents, to underline the needs which their constituents press on them, then you have government without the control of parliament.
I hope no one will be offended when I say there are two ways of having a one party state. One is to prohibit opposition parties from existing. That is open totalitarianism. The other way is to permit opposition parties to exist and to elect members to parliament and when they get here to muzzle them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: That is the way to create a subtle one party state, and it is not an exaggeration to say that is precisely what rule 16-A proposes.
We have heard from the words both of the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council that they are reasonable men. Last night the right hon. Prime Minister said a reasonable time would be allowed for debate. When I interjected and inquired, "who will say what is a reasonable time", he replied, "reasonable men."
I have often said, Mr. Speaker, that our Prime Minister, whom I have had the pleasure of knowing for some years, is one of the
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report cutest political ingenues this country has ever produced. I say there is nothing ingenue about him. Every word is calculated. When he uses a word it has a meaning and when he leaves out a word that also has a meaning. When he answered my interjection "who will decide what is a reasonable time" by saying "reasonable men", that had only one meaning. Reasonable men on the treasury benches. They are the only ones who will have the right to pass on what is a reasonable time for debate. Backbench members of the government party, if they were not bound by the traditional discipline that sometimes is so overwhelming it tears one's conscience, would themselves say they are not prepared to leave the judgment and decision in the hands of those on the treasury benches to decide what is reasonable time. The only way to know what is reasonable is by discussion and debate.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I recall a little discussion I had a few years ago with Mr. Ivan Rand, an ex-judge of the Supreme Court of Canada. We were both at a session of the Law Society of Upper Canada taking part in some lectures in the field of law. We were listening to someone who kept on saying, "the fact is". Mr. Justice Rand turned to me and said, "David, whenever I hear someone say "the fact is" I have before me the representation of a four-walled prism made of glass. One side of the prism is made out of an ordinary pane of glass. Another side of the prism is made of magnifying glass. The third side of the prism is painted red on ordinary glass. The fourth side of the prism is magnified and painted red. Then you throw in a little green pea." Mr. Rand said, "If I look through the ordinary glass pane I see an ordinary little green pea but when I look through the magnifying glass which is painted red I see a huge red ball." That is what "reasonable" is in this context. Who says whether or not it is reasonable? Whether or not it is reasonable depends on whether you look through the ordinary piece of glass or through the magnifying glass painted red. How does one arrive at a conclusion in this regard in a civilized society? It is done by discussion and give and take on the part of all parties concerned, if you are a person who is motivated to make parliament work in the interest of the Canadian people and not otherwise.
On a number of occasions the Prime Minister has spoken about participatory democracy and about the need to involve people in politics. I ask the simple question, how seriously can those words be taken when one

of the first important steps he takes as Prime Minister of this country is to deprive members of parliament of their opportunity of participatory democracy. Who else in this country has a more direct involvement in politics than those whom the people elected to represent them in parliament? How seriously can this kind of theoretical stuff be taken from one who seeks to decrease, stultify and, if he can, cut out altogether the involvement of ordinary members of this house in the running of this country?
Will this political power be used? Will the government be unreasonable? I do not know. As the Leader of the Opposition, and as my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said yesterday, the assurances that may be given are of no value. In the heat of battle God alone knows what might be reasonable. I do know, however, that if there should be a measure in the future about which the government feels very deeply and is determined to pass, it will use rule 16A in any way it sees fit in order to get its way.
Like many members here I have studied now for some 40 years the theory of politics and political science, and others who are younger have studied it for fewer years but just as intensely. Therefore we are aware that if anything is valid in the history and theory of political science it is that if you give a person or body a power you may be darned sure that that power will be used. Furthermore, if anything is true in history or political theory it is that no one seeks a power which he does not intend to use. And when the government seeks the power contained in 16A it intends to use it and there is no control over the manner in which it might be used, except by discussion with opposition representatives to arrive at an allocation of time, agreement by sensible, civilized behaviour on all sides.
I see no reason in the world why I should be asked to trust the government to be reasonable when the government insists that it cannot trust the opposition to be reasonable. Man for man, Mr. Speaker, we may not be better than the members of the government- I repeat, "we may not be"-but I assure you that we cannot be any worse. We are as determined to be reasonable in conducting the affairs of this parliament as is any member on the government side whether he be on the front-benches or on the backbenches.
One of the arguments for the extreme need to be tough about the allocation of time which the President of the Privy Council used was
December IX, 1968

the prolonged flag debate. I do not recall whether he made that statement in this house or somewhere else. As it happened I was not a member of parliament at that time. This occurred during the parliament of 1963-65 and I was defeated in the election of 1963. Like very many people outside parliament, I felt that that debate was a waste of time. I was irritated that members of a certain party were responsible for dragging out that debate.
I still feel that perhaps the debate was somewhat too long, but I say very seriously to the members of the cabinet who are here that often in retrospect I have thought it might well be that the length and acerbity of that debate served a purpose for Canada.
Having travelled across this country and having met many people who objected to the abandoning of our former flag, it seems to me it might well be that the bloodletting which took place on the floor of this house and the arguments which took place here as well as the length of time the debate took, which gave the people of all regions an opportunity to write and send wires to their members, might be the reason, historically speaking, that Canadians accepted the flag in a manner and in a way in which they might not otherwise have done. I suggest seriously that perhaps that debate should have taken half the time it did, but I am confident that when there is a major issue of that sort the expression of the people's feeling about it in the house and the opportunity given to the people of Canada to express their feelings through their members is an example of the way in which democracy works. It is the way in which the consent is obtained of the people who are concerned about such a matter and it is the way in which to avoid having constant and continuous feeling of bitterness and frustration on the part of those who have been defeated.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Democracy works by consent only when it gives those who oppose what is being done the fullest opportunity to express themselves, so that they do not live with the frustration of having had something shoved down their throats without having had the right and freedom to think about it and to speak on it. I claim no originality for that statement. Surely this is an elementary fact of the democratic process. Nowhere should that fact be reflected more carefully and clearly than in the parliament of Canada. This is what the proposed standing order 16A would endanger.

Motion for Concurrence in Report
The Prime Minister last night made a speech in which for the most part he talked about the need for change. He does not need to persuade us about that. We have in our party, and I think members of all other parties as well, Liberal, Conservative-I am not sure I have heard the Creditistes say this- advocated the need for changes in the rules.

I do not often have the opportunity to go to the province of Quebec-

I have heard Conservatives, Liberals and members of my party talk about the need to reform parliament. We accept that proposition. But when we think of reforming parliament we have to accommodate two opposing principles. Both principles are important, but I believe one is more important than the other. We should not move in the direction which the government indicates. The two principles we have to accommodate and reconcile are the principle of efficiency and that of adequate freedom of speech in this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I agree with the Prime Minister-and we in my party said this a long time ago-that if parliament is so silly and if members of the opposition are so silly as to prolong a debate on one bill beyond a reasonable time, what they are doing is preventing the possibility of debate on another bill which may be equally important. They are cutting their own throats; they are doing a disservice to Canada, whichever way you like to put it.
Therefore efficiency is an important principle. But efficiency for what, is the question we have to ask. Efficiency for what purpose, is what we have to decide. Is it efficiency merely in terms of the government getting its measures passed with the least possible difficulty, or is it efficiency in terms of conducting the work of parliament so that there takes place the fullest debate possible under the circumstances, an expression of all views, a confrontation of differing and conflicting philosophies, a consideration of legislation with as much objectivity as any politican can muster? That is the kind of efficiency I am talking about, not the kind of efficiency that is represented in proposed standing order 16A.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: We should think of the efficiency of parliament in those terms, not of the
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report efficiency of parliament in bureaucratic, technocratic, organizational, computer terms, which I must say the Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council seem to me to be thinking about, wherein you say there should be one hour for this, one day for that, one and a half days for that, 40 minutes for this, and 60 minutes for something else. It is not something that you can put on a tape and run through a computer. I am darned if I can see any sense in it.
But if you think of efficiency in terms of the functions of this parliament, the functions of members of parliament who are here to speak on behalf of the people of Canada, each one of them, backbench as well as front-bench, then of course you can come to a reasonable conclusion because in that case you look at a bill and see that it has only three or four clauses, the principle is not terribly controversial, and it can be dealt with in half a day. Or you look at the omnibus bill to amend the Criminal Code and you say, in discussion in committee, "This is a large bill which deals with a number of subjects, there are deep feelings about it, and we will have a debate of three, four or five days in order to be sure that every point of view is adequately expressed in parliament." That is the reason we are here.
I suggest this is the only way we can reconcile the conflict of efficiency with the need for freedom of speech. This is why we in the opposition cannot agree to leave the decision as to what is reasonable time, and the decision as to exactly how much time is to be given to what, not only in the house but in standing and select committees of the house, as members have already indicated, to the government. I do not say this because I think this government is any worse than other governments Canada has had. I happen to belong to a party and to have a philosophy that does not consider any other government has been of the best for Canada.


John Napier Turner: You are
short on experience.


David Lewis: Maybe that is it. I do not say that because I do not trust the members of the government as individual human beings. I do. I am sure every other member of the opposition would agree that they are honourable men. Those who have wives do not beat them, and those who have dogs do not beat them. One can rely on their being humane and decent in normal circumstances. I had to say "those who have" for obvious reasons.

But you cannot leave this kind of power to a small group of men to control, subvert and destroy the effectiveness of this parliament to function on behalf of the Canadian people.
My time is up, Mr. Speaker. I want to end the way I started. I plead with the President of the Privy Council, as the minister responsible for the subject matter of the reports, to seriously consider making this concession to parliament, namely, leaving the committee on procedure to act by agreement for the rest of this session, knowing that he has the authority under the rules which the committee of which he was a member proposed to set up a permanent standing committee.
The President of the Privy Council gave an undertaking last night. He gave it to us, so it would certainly be good for him. When the President of the Privy Council speaks to the hon. member for Rosedale he can tell him, "I gave this undertaking to the opposition and must keep it." I refer to the undertaking that this permanent committee will review the rules that are to prevail for the remainder of the session. I plead with him to do that so this debate is not prolonged, so we can get to the legislation which the government says it wants to put before us.
If the opposition does not behave for the remainder of the session, if the committee on procedure does not function on the basis of agreement, those of us who are anxious that it function will be here at the next session to listen to his proposals for improvement. But if we show that this committee does function, surely it is better to have an allocation of time by agreement than to have one by dictatorship. I appeal to the President of the Privy Council even at this stage to accept this suggestion and to see whether we cannot have a stabilized parliament that works in co-operation, as everyone wants it to do.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and others, I was quite convinced that the purpose of the new rules was to reduce the time for debate to about two months. I had to read them again to convince myself that this is not the case at all. They are not going to limit debate. We will have more time for debate because the 15 or 16 committees will take a great burden off the house and all those things we want to debate will be debated.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The question is, which subjects will be debated? Again, under the new rules the
December 11, 1968

opposition will have their choice in many respects, but it seems that the hon. member for York South is questioning the reason for this. Apparently he believes that the government will not be reasonable and the power which the opposition had will be used by the government, as he said, maliciously. According to him the government will use the power in an unreasonable way but the opposition will use sweet reason at all times. Never will they try to pile up points for the next election, never will they try to filibuster. Obviously the impression is left that the people gave a mandate to the opposition to use the power and not to us. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that in the last election the mandate was given to the government, not to the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forty five per cent.


Steven Otto: No, 52 per cent. In listening to the speeches from the Conservative side I was reminded of a statement made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he took me to task about three years ago and said "the young gentleman", meaning me-


Mr. MacEwan:: It certainly was more than three years ago.


Steven Otto: -is under the impression that this house is a legislative body. I want to remind him that this is not a house for legislation or for governing; it is a house solely to maintain freedom and a place to express grievances." That is what he said and that is what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has repeated. He said it is not a legislative grist mill. If this were a debating society without any connection with the public and without any idea of what the public will is, all of the arguments used would have been valid. However, I would like to remind the house that so far as the people are concerned it is their will that this be a house for legislation. They want legislation to be passed here. But no one has yet been able to tell us how we will be able to get 80 or 90 bills through this house without having to invoke rule 16-A.


An hon. Member:: Try us and you will find out.


Steven Otto: Unless such is the sweet will of the opposition, of course. That is what the people want. The fact is that the Prime 29180-243J

Motion for Concurrence in Report Minister is not only changing the rules of this house but also changing the structure of the government itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
were right on the first one.


Steven Otto: The people thought we were a legislative body. They found we were not, and they are disenchanted with us. Here we are, a nice little debating club discussing rules of procedure and hope we will be able to get a little more popularity or use from the people on the opposite side and how to add up points and ammunition for the next election. That is not what the people want, and this is the very point at issue. Surely you, Mr. Speaker, must acknowledge that it is not only the rules of the house that are being changed but also the whole structure of the government. No one could have missed the announcement by the Prime Minister that there would be a change in the whole cabinet structure.
The hon. member for York South pointed out what the Prime Minister has already said, that indeed it is questionable whether the cabinet itself sets down policy, that in many cases it is the administration, the senior civil servants, the establishment, the mandarin class that does so. Why do hon. members think we now have a schedule for ministers? The Prime Minister himself has said we must give time to the ministers to look after their departments and to come up with policies. There is nothing strange in this. Have you not heard of regional desks?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But they are not part of government.


Steven Otto: There is nothing sanctimonious about members of parliament, but the purpose of all these rules, and especially of rule 16A, is to make this house a functional body which will live up to the expectation of Canadians.


Mr. Peters:: A substitute for brains.


Steven Otto: I am not saying that the proposed rules will take away power from the backbenchers because the backbenchers have never had power, and it is sometimes questionable whether the cabinet has ever had power. However, we certainly like to fool ourselves and our constituents by telling them what powerful people we are. There has never been any communication between the backbenchers and their constituents and the
December 11, 1968

Motion for Concurrence in Report real seat of the government. I had great expectations in regard to the new rules because they send the estimates to committees and I expected that this would allow the backbenchers, including the backbenchers on this side if they felt very strongly about an issue, to vote a reduction in the estimates without a vote of confidence, indicating that they had some power when they questioned the administrators so that the administrators would be more co-operative. The backbenchers are supposed to have this power. However, I have the feeling that the time will come very shortly when the backbenchers will be instructed not to use this power and that it will be unheard of for these estimates ever to be reduced. If we do not have power over the purse I doubt that we are going to have any power, and I doubt that the administrators are going to be very co-operative.
An example of this was what happened recently in the committee on transport and communications. One of the Liberal members had asked for information concerning a contract between the Kaiser Corporation and the government of Canada. The answer was that of course it could not be produced, and in fact it was not produced. I do not think any particular reason was given for not producing it. I myself have asked the Department of Manpower and Immigration officials to produce their little secret booklet indicating the points for all the trades and all the classifications of trades. I was given a wonderful story about the usefulness of this booklet and about how it changes every three or four months, but I have never seen it, nor has anyone else. As long as backbenchers have no power over the purse, this will continue. I doubt that the estimates will be as carefully scrutinized as we would like if this power is taken away from the backbenchers. I do not think for a moment there would be five or six Liberals, except on a very important issue, who would vote against an estimate. However, there is a possibility that it can be done and the administrators know that that possibility exists.


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



POLLUTION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved:: That a special committee of the House of Commons composed of not more than 15 members, to be later designated by the house, be established to investigate generally the problem of pollution in the waters and air of Canada, and the plans of the federal government in relation thereto, with powers to report from time to time its observations, opinions and recommendations thereon.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion which I am introducing in the house today is to set up a committee to consider the ever-increasing problem of pollution in Canada, in North America and elsewhere in the world. Perhaps I should address myself first to establishing the fact that the problem exists and, second, to describing how I think a committee of this house might help to alleviate the problem.
Pollution is an inevitable aspect of man's existence. Whatever a man does, wherever he lives, his action will ultimately be considered by some other person to be in some way interfering with nature. So, I think we should realize that there is no easy solution to this problem. We should bear in mind that we must do what we can to minimize the problems that pollution raises. But while pollution to some degree is inevitable, what is not inevitable for Canada, and we are perhaps lucky in this respect, is a high level of pollution. We do not yet have the development that exists in other countries of the world, and I do not think it is inevitable for Canada's heritage of lakes, forests, streams and other natural advantages to be destroyed when the country develops. I think it is important to realize that while, on the one hand, we may not have the world's highest standard of living, we are perhaps fortunate in that we have large areas of unspoiled country, and thus we may well enjoy the world's highest standard of life. It is hoped that in the future we will be paying particular attention to these points, that we will be doing what we can to preserve in this country the streams, forests, lakes and clear skies which I think we all appreciate so much.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In North America, Mr. Speaker, the rate of urban development is becoming greater and greater. It is estimated that in the year 2000, only some 30 years hence, there will be three
December 11, 1968	COMMONS
cities in North America, three collective conglomerations of cities, which will have total populations of something like 140 million. These will be between Boston and Washington on the east coast, between San Francisco and San Diego on the west coast and between Chicago and Pittsburgh in the centre of the United States. We in Canada may not have cities of the same size but we will have the same problems. In the Vancouver area of British Columbia it is quite possible that the entire lower mainland will become one urban area. It is certainly possible that the enormous population surrounding Toronto will be linked up in one large urban area, and we may well have a city there which will be as large as New York city is now. I think, therefore, we should not say that because we have space in this country we will not be faced in the future with the same problems the United States faces today. We should realize that these problems do exist and we should do what we can now to prevent the change of our environment from radically altering our environment for the worse.
I do not want to belabour this particular point. We have with us in this house, by great good fortune, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens) a former mayor of Toronto, who is an expert in the urban field. I am sure he will have much of interest to say on this subject in future debates. I should like to leave you with the thought that in 30 years time, I certainly hope well within your lifetime, Mr. Speaker, and within mine, we will be having urban centres in North America with populations from 40 million to 50 million. Even now, with population centres much less extensive, we find that in North America, in Canada, there are lakes which are dying, bays and rivers which are becoming nothing more than open sewers.
I think we are very fortunate that the people of Canada have become aware of this problem. Perhaps they are well ahead of political leaders in this house, in the provincial legislatures in municipal politics. The people of this country are concerned. We can tell this from the correspondence we receive and from the representations that are made. There is a great demand for clean soil, for pure air and for pure water. They know that these things are vital to our way of life, to our enjoyment of our natural environment.
Every year there are more organizations and more and more individuals who realize that in order to preserve the standard of life we enjoy, we Canadians must take steps to preserve our natural heritage. The problem is
DEBATES	3835
Proposed Committee on Pollution extremely complex. It cannot be solved, as I mentioned earlier, simply by spending a lot of money in one area or by following one single program. The solution of the problem will require time; it will require patience and certainly it will require large sums of money. If I may digress let me mention for a minute this question of money. In the United States today, in one way or another, $10 billion is being spent on pollution control. When we compare that with our entire Canadian budget of $12 billion, we realize there is a fantastic amount of money already being spent for this purpose, but from all appearances without any great success. This I think emphasizes that the whole problem of pollution control is expensive. Ultimately the people who will pay will be the public, either through taxation or through higher prices for industrial products.
I should like to quote Dr. W. R. Drynan of the research institute of the University of Waterloo, who said:
Pollution control is a matter of establishing priorities, but first we have to establish the goals of society. Technology exists for an acceptable level of pollution control, but a value judgment has to be made and then society has to decide whether or not it is worth while to spend the money.
It is perfectly clear from this statement that money has to be spent and that a great deal will have to be spent. I suggest to the members of this house that if it is not spent now, if we do not set our sights high enough now, if we worry too much about costs today and too little about the bill for pollution tomorrow, we will not have much of a legacy to pass to future generations in this country.
The question of pollution embraces a great number of disciplines. The obvious ones are biology, physics, chemistry and engineering. There is also agronomy, ecology and even acoustics, as the people living near the Toronto airport know. Bacteriology and thermodynamics are also involved. Similarly, we have a great number of government departments involved in pollution control. One is the federal Department of Fisheries. The Department of Transport is also involved, as is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. Another department that comes to mind when we consider pollution control is the Department of National Health and Welfare. I have just given these four examples from the federal field. The provinces are involved in this area because the constitution gives resource management to them. On this point I believe it would be worth while to
December 11, 1968

Proposed Committee on Pollution quote a noted authority in this field, Mr. F. H. Finnis, who states:
The provinces should take primary responsibility for pollution control because, constitutionally, it is their field.
As we can see, there are many government departments involved and there are various levels of government involved. At present there is no body which co-ordinates these various aspects of pollution control. It is for this reason that I have suggested a house committee. I feel that at present the problem of pollution control is dealt with in its various aspects by various departments at various levels of government, and we have nothing which brings these various aspects together and focuses attention on them as a whole. This is particularly important. There is a need for a committee of this house to devote itself to this task, and to this task alone.
It is suggested that perhaps there are other committees of the house which are capable of examining the various aspects of pollution control and therefore there is no need for another committee. I submit to you, sir, that many of the things now done by other committees, should be done by a single committee on pollution, and would be done better. This committee might have representatives from, say, the fisheries committee, the health and welfare committee, or any other committee of this house. I am not concerned with its composition at this stage. My suggestion is that a single committee can focus attention on this problem of pollution control. With it we would then be better able to make the extremely important decisions on resource allocation which the whole question of pollution control requires.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Although some people feel there are already too many committees, a further committee would in no way result in any overlapping or duplication of the work of civil servants who at present testify before other committees on the subject of pollution. What should happen is that instead of testifying before these many committees, members of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources would have to testify before only one committee. I think this is an important consideration and might save time. Certainly there might be a saving of the very expensive time of government civil servants, and for that reason alone I think it well worth considering.
The argument that in some way a committee of this nature would get into what is a


provincial jurisdiction and thus cause friction with the provinces is, I think, also fallacious. It is true that this committee would be able to summon any witness and make any report that it feels necessary. In no way would it be restricted entirely to the consideration of aspects within federal jurisdiction. The committee can suggest, for instance, that in a certain area of pollution control nothing should be done without the co-operation of the provinces, and that therefore the federal government take the steps necessary to cooperate with the provinces to achieve a certain end. I cannot see any real problem about this committee interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
I do not think we need at this time go into the details of how the committee would be set up and who would decide its terms of reference.
I should like to sum up my remarks by saying that the problem of pollution exists and I think all Canadians are now becoming aware of that fact. But that is not what I am trying to demonstrate here today. What I am saying is that a committee of this house, which would have the opportunity of calling witnesses and of travelling to various parts of the country to observe pollution problems that might have been caused by industrial exploitation or by any other circumstance, would perform a useful function. I cannot accept the arguments that this would interfere with the functions of other committees or that it would be an interference in a provincial jurisdiction.
Therefore I hope that those who follow me in this debate will limit themselves to discussing the pros and cons of establishing such a committee. If they do this with maximum dispatch then perhaps we can come to a vote on the matter this afternoon and recommend to the government that the setting up of such a committee be considered.


Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Char-lotie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise particularly
because I want to express my support for what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) has said this afternoon in connection with this very important matter. I am quite prepared to vote for his motion if it comes to a vote, and I will be glad to give further support if he will follow this through with a later motion, or take whatever course he chooses, in order to bring about a very desirable improvement in the pollution situation that exists all over Canada.
December 11, 1968

I am sure I will be excused if I refer especially to the situation in my own province of New Brunswick, because in that province pollution is a most difficult problem to solve. Questions of jurisdiction are involved. In this regard I draw to the attention of the house and the sponsor of this motion that New Brunswick has two rivers, the Saint John and the St. Croix, which may both be considered international rivers. Since they are international rivers they fall within the ambit of the international joint commission. As it is a body composed of representatives two countries instead of one, jurisdictional difficulties are just about doubled.
The Saint John river flows along the border of the state of Maine and New Brunswick, entering our province at the city of Edmund-ston. At this point the river is an international one since it is the boundary between New Brunswick and the state of Maine. About 50 miles farther on the river becomes entirely a New Brunswick river, though farther back toward its source it is entirely within the state of Maine.
The river flows through New Brunswick parallel with the boundary for about 100 miles. Small streams which spring from the state of Maine flow into the Saint John river, and the pollution of the Saint John river, generally speaking, comes from plants situated in the state of Maine. This pollution flows into a great many of these small streams that join the Saint John river and consists partly of ordinary sewage from towns and partly of waste from processing plants of one kind or another.
I mention this so as to bring to the attention of the house the great jurisdictional difficulties that exist here, though I do not suggest these difficulties are entirely confined to our particular situation. However, Canada does have a 4,000 mile boundary with the United States, a good part of which is water.
Before terminating my remarks I think I should refer to the situation that affects the Saint Croix which is almost entirely an international river. We are trying to preserve the salmon fishery of the river, but since several towns are situated on both sides of the border along the river the improvement and restoration of the salmon fishery are most difficult. So many jurisdictional problems are involved.
The people of the town of St. Stephen on the New Brunswick side of the river are most anxious to bring about this improvement because the pollution at that point is getting to be scandalous. A pulp mill is situated

Proposed Committee on Pollution upriver about 15 miles and pumps its effluent into the river. Immediately across the river on the Maine side is the town of Galais. A little farther upriver is Mill town on the New Brunswick side. These towns collectively have a population of something like 15,000 to 20,000 people, half of the people residing in the state of Maine and half in New Brunswick, and they are concentrated in this small area.
Although this makes a solution difficult to find, it does not mean that nothing should be done. I submit that it is the function of governments to pay attention to problems such as this. However, since the federal government and the provincial administration must first get together, and then the municipal administrations and the two countries themselves must be brought into the discussions, one can readily see that the task is far from easy.
Last summer a processing plant so polluted one of the rivers in the county of Carleton that people driving their automobiles along the road running parallel to the river had to wind up their windows to shut out the terrible odour. The people of the little town of Centreville did the best they could to get some action about this from the authorities in the state of Maine since the plant was on the U.S. side, but without result. Therefore they decided to take the law into their own hands and built a dam across the river between New Brunswick and Maine. A bulldozer was donated to them; they built a dam, dammed up the water and shoved it back into Maine. It was only a few weeks before relief was afforded to people of the town. They went in and knocked down the dam. I was one of a fairly large group of people, some 800 or 1,000, who erected a monument to the people who built the dam. It is still there but there are no names on it. I submit it is a symbol of the frustration people feel in connection with pollution.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Certainly pollution has never received adequate attention by governments at any level. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) deserves to be commended for bringing the matter to the attention of the house. Since he has brought it forward perhaps some of our governments may react to his proposals and do something to benefit those parts of the country suffering from pollution.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words on this
December 11, 1968

Proposed Committee on Pollution motion. I know that it calls for a special committee to be set up to deal specifically with pollution but I am not too sure we need a committee. We already have a national resources committee not much larger than the 15 man committee suggested here and it deals primarily with Canadian water resources. It would not be too difficult to have that committee tackle this problem. Mind you, I am not objecting to a special committee being set up. I say that because for many years I have spoken out against the lack of federal or provincial control over pollution. In this day and age it is a pretty severe indictment of the types of governments we have had, both federal and provincial, that we have reached the stage where pollution has become a danger of such proportions that mankind's very existence on earth is threatened.
In my hand I have a clipping printed by one of the British Columbia papers just over two years ago. The article is headed, "Man's Future Soon Will Be Known". It deals with the opinions of Ernst Mayr, director of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. The article says in part:
Life on earth will probably persist for millions of years, but there is little chance man will be among the surviving species, a Harvard zoologist said here Monday. Ernst Mayr, director of the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology, said in an interview that we may soon know whether man will survive. Either some cataclysmic event, such as a nuclear war, will end man's tenure on earth, or through a tremendous effort of selfcontrol he will make a new start, Mayr believes. One or the other probably will take place in the lifetimes of people now living, he said.
Describing himself as pessimistic of man's chances for survival, Mayr pointed out that 99 per cent of all life forms which have existed have become extinct. If man is to persist on earth there are two things he must do, and do at once, according to the Harvard scientist. He must quickly learn to control the increasing human population, and he must learn to stop destroying the environment.
"Man's ability to control the environment was said to be his biggest advantage over other species," Mayr said. "In the beginning this was true, as he invented shelters and clothing to protect him from the weather, and weapons and tools to help him harness the productivity of nature."
Mayr said the contrast of those ancient times with these modern times is dismal.
"Now almost everything we do is harmful to the species and works against its survival. We make the air unfit to breathe, the water unfit to drink, we seed the atmosphere with radioactivity, erode the soil, clear the land and plaster it with asphalt and concrete," he said. "Our destruction of our environment seems endless."
I will not read the rest of the article, but what I have read is a sampling of what has 

been coming to governments at all levels- municipal governments, provincial governments, federal governments and even to the United Nations. The top scientists of every nation on earth have warned that we are in danger of wiping mankind from the face of the earth. And we have been heedless of those warnings.
Politicians are primarily to blame for our pollution troubles. I say that because many politicians and governments are afraid to move against the powers that be which are responsible for much of the present-day Canadian pollution. Perhaps the offender is a big industrial plant pouring effluent into a river; perhaps it is a plant pouring filth into the air. Always the economic weapon that is used against the workers, governments and people of Canada is, "If we are forced to take effective measures, it will cost money and we will be priced out of the market." That is why all across the dominion of Canada in 1968-and I do not care where you go-there is no effective pollution control. Neither provincially nor federally have we proper legislation with teeth in it. There is no appropriate legislation in any of our great country's jurisdictions to take care of this problem which has become acute. I say it is time that Canadian politicians and the Canadian people realized that we cannot deal with pollution by closing our eyes and going to sleep. We must sit down realistically and tackle the problem, find out what is causing pollution, find out what it will cost to fight it and learn what governments will have to do to control it. We must discover what regulations will be necessary to fight pollution; we must draft and enforce those regulations regardless of which party is in power and see they are adhered to.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to one or two facts to show how serious the pollution problem is. I know there is not one hon. member in this house who has not a file on pollution and who cannot recite problems relating to some stream, river or lake with regard to pollution, or perhaps the problem might be one of air or land pollution.
I turn now to the situation in British Columbia. After all, I come from there and I am more familiar with what goes on in that province. We have a government in office in British Columbia which has ignored this problem. For two or three successive years
December 11, 1968

representatives of opposition parties in the legislature pressed the administration to bring in laws against air pollution, but all their efforts were unsuccessful. To me, this failure by the government to take action amounts to sheer stupidity. But that is what happened. Members of all parties gave instances of spawning beds being harmed by the pollution of some of our great rivers and streams. In my own area of Kootenay West, one of the most beautiful parts of Canada, sections of the Kootenay river are so polluted that health authorities have issued warnings against using the water or even swimming in it. I presume the fish are seriously affected.
This is not an isolated case. This is happening in every province in Canada. It is happening because we have failed to take time out to study this problem and make certain that we are in a position to force individuals, industries and government, too, to adhere to certain strict principles which we in Ottawa should be prepared to lay down.
In closing I should like to say I have a vast amount of material on this subject together with a long list of solutions, or suggested solutions, which I should like to put before a committee or before this house when a suitable opportunity occurs. We cannot afford any delay in tackling this problem. Whether the job is done in a special committee or in the committee on natural resources, it must be carried out, and I urge members of this house, particularly supporters of the government, to insist, regardless of what those on the treasury benches may think, that a committee be set up to look into this problem and propose legislation for enactment before the first session of this parliament is completed in June.
I urge hon. members to support action along these lines to see whether we cannot make 1969 the year in which we really made a start in trackling the pollution hazards which confront the Canadian people today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my colleague from British Columbia for his action in putting forward this resolution. I think the interest he shows in this subject is shared by all members of the house.
Since I, too, have had the pleasure of serving in the British Columbia legislature, I was particularly interested in certain of the remarks made by the hon. member who has
Proposed Committee on Pollution just resumed his seat. Having sat in the legislature with him for a number of years, let me say I find myself in agreement with many of the sentiments he has expressed regarding the lack of activity in our province when it comes to measures against pollution.
It is a paradox that a society which has witnessed such enormous advances in technology, science and health standards should witness at the same time a proliferation of pollution in all its forms. To a large degree, society seems to be frustrated by this problem. Waste of all kinds pollutes our air, our soil and our water. I note that the resolution makes no reference to soil pollution, though soil pollution can be extremely serious in its effects. We have experienced a serious case in British Columbia in recent years in the Grand Forks area, and I hope that if we do form a committee and if a major study is undertaken, soil pollution will be included in the terms of reference.
As our population grows and living standards rise, there will be more waste and more pollution. This situation must be dealt with. Those who are denied pure water, pure air and clean soil have little patience with the endless constitutional dialogue, important as that dialogue may be. They want pollution control and they do not want buckpassing. Surely a just society is, among other things, a society which does not penalize any of its citizens by obliging them to live in a polluted environment.
In years past little public attention was paid to pollution. The standard reply of many, given to those who did complain about it was: the smell of pollution is the smell of money. We know now that in economic terms alone, apart altogether from considerations of health and aesthetics, the money price has become too high. We know now that unsafe, unclean water, whether consumed directly or sprayed on crops, poses a serious health hazard. The same applies to the improper use of pesticides, or to polluted air. No one can condone air pollution which may cause chronic bronchitis or emphysema, or the pollution of water which may cause even more serious disabilities. As to air pollution, industrial smoke and dirt are the most obvious targets for control. But the jet age has brought new problems. People talk about building new jet-age airports, despite the fact that these are now considered by some authorities as likely to become a serious source of air pollution.
December 11, 1968

Proposed Committee on Pollution
The Montreal city health department in a report signed by Jean Manier, head oi the air pollution division, said on February 15 of this year as reported in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald that motor vehicle exhaust gases could, under certain weather conditions, cause the carbon monoxide intake of the average city driver to rise to serious levels. It has become necessary to consider in this country the installation of exhaust devices of the kind made compulsory in California. The time to do so is now, preparatory to introducing legislation accordingly.
Air pollution caused by dirt recently short-circuited two 120,000 volt power lines in Montreal and was blamed by Hydro-Quebec as the major cause of the electricity blackout in Montreal east last March. In this one instance alone, the old simplistic excuse that the smell of pollution is the smell of money has been discredited utterly. Industry was, in this instance, penalized directly and in a dramatic way. Industry was hit right in the pocketbook, and so were the people of Canada.
In my home province our citizens have been affected by pollution, some tragically. One group of farmers in Grand Forks had a bitter experience of soil pollution. A few years ago they were advised by the federal Department of Agriculture to apply dieldim to the land to cure a potato disease. The farmers followed this advice but were later told the department had decided that dieldim was injurious to health. It found traces of dieldim in the milk produced by the cows that ate the potatoes. It caused economic tragedy for those farmers, and no one can measure the effect it might have had on the people who consumed those products. I would like to see the government take action this session to compensate those who are affected economically by this particular type of soil pollution.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
We can all agree that the devil of pollution exists. The question is how best can that devil be exorcised. Control of pollution, water and air pollution, is a matter which falls partially within the constitutional powers of the federal government and partially within the powers of the provinces and their subsidiaries, the municipalities. All levels of government are becoming more active in the field. The result has been much confusion and duplicated effort.
It is encouraging to see conferences of the kind held in Victoria last week when resource

ministers from all across Canada, provincial and federal, sat down together in a non-contentious, constructive conference to cope with the problems of pollution, unlike some conferences where there are differences of opinion and clashes of viewpoints. There is now concern at the federal, provincial and local levels of government that we must work together and achieve a workable framework within which pollution can be combatted.
I know there are other hon. members who wish to speak in this debate and so I shall keep my contribution short. I have here some of the background papers from the water workshop seminar held in Victoria at the beginning of last week. A very significant paper was presented to that conference by Dale Gibson, professor of the faculty of law at the University of Manitoba. His main thesis is that despite what people say about the constitution, that the constitut on prevents the federal government from taking certain action and prevents the provincial governments from taking certain action to fight pollution, and thus the problems land between the two of them, he believes that the constitution presents no insuperable obstacles to the creation of a more satisfactory scheme of water management and the maintenance of purity in water. He concludes:
The administration of Canadian water resources will continue in the foreseeable future to involve a blend of federal and provincial activities, but there is no constitutional reason why it should continue to be hampered by the confusion and poor co-ordination that mark the present situation.
Excuses are no longer tolerable to the Canadian people. They know that if pollution is to be combatted we must have an adequate pollution control structure.
Local government is concerned about the disposal of garbage, sewage and industrial wastes and, in some cases, with the responsibility for the prevention of some forms of air pollution, usually smoke abatement. A recent survey by the Canadian Tax Foundation indicates that in general an appalling situation has been allowed to develop with regard to sewage treatment from coast to coast. A significant number of Canadians must still rely on septic tanks for sewage disposal, and too often the soil in which septic tanks are located is unsuitable for such installations. The survey also shows that most communities which have some form of treatment plant provide primary rather than secondary treatment. I find it intolerable that there should be any raw sewage whatsoever dumped in any
TMr. Perrault.]
December 11, 1968

river in any part of Canada. Many municipalities would like to improve their disposal systems but they are frustrated by lack of money. There is another argument for a new sharing of revenues and responsibilities between the provinces and the federal government and between the provinces and local governments.
Time does not permit me to speak about the subject of detergents, and about the terrible effects which phosphates have had in many lakes in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. Some hon. members may be interested to note that the pollution effect of effluent from a large sulphite pulp mill producing 500 tons per day may be equivalent to that of sewage from a city of two million people. Fortunately, many Canadian pulp mills are acting like good corporate citizens and are now installing equipment to fight pollution.
The problem is to achieve a sensible and safe balance, to establish tolerable pollution levels and standards in this country. We must find ways to minimize pollution while at the same time assuring a good level of industrial growth and expansion. The government is doing good work now in all parts of the country to meet the problem. Time does not permit a recitation of what is being done province by province. We have the Canada centre for inland waters, the national advisory committee on water resources research, and the continuing meetings of resource ministers, but suffice it to say that pollution control cannot be effective only at the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level. All three levels of government must be concerned. The spirit of this resolution is an excellent one, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion under study proposes the creation of a 15-member committee of the house to which would be assigned the task of studying the problem of pollution.
In the few minutes I have left, I shall limit myself to a few brief remarks as we shall be given, at a later date, the opportunity to express all our views on this most important problem.
However, I am flabbergasted to see that the only solution the government can suggest is to study a problem which everyone knows about.
I have here, in my hand, the complete report on a study made by the National Pollution Conference. This report, published in
Proposed Committee on Pollution four volumes, deals with all kinds of pollutions and proposes solutions to the problems. Now, if another house committee studies those problems, it must arrive at the same conclusions, because scientists have studied those problems for over four years.
As the government takes pleasure in advising us that it is anxious to introduce legislation, I feel that the mover of this notice of motion-even if he is filled with good intentions-should have proposed legislation capable of fighting pollution, for if we ask the committee to study the various problems of pollution during two or three years, we will then have wasted precious time.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
In addition to air and water pollution, I feel that something should be said also about food pollution, the pollution of moral standards, money and politics, about which the Ralliement Creditiste has been talking for a long time.
But with regard to the matter under consideration, namely air and water pollution, I wish to tell the house about the recommendations I found in the information which I was given by the parliamentary library. I think it is backward to waste more time studying a problem known by all industrialists, merchants, municipalities and public bodies. The time for study is past, it is time to legislate. And if I take the floor today, it is to urge the house to legislate on an important problem.
In fact, statistics show that two infants out of ten-and Canada is no exception-die from the harmful effects of air or water pollution. I have here another publication which says that water is life. One knows that man can live for a while without clothing and shelter, but he dies very quickly from lack of food or water.
If you consider in particular the problem of water pollution, you find today that most of our lakes are polluted, as well as most of our rivers and beaches. Although it is a general and urgent problem the only suggestion made in this house is to conduct studies when legislation should be passed to implement the recommendations made by the national conference on pollution.
Mr. Speaker, the measure before us today is outdated, in view of the urgency of solutions which must be found, because this problem is very serious for human, animal and plant life, indeed any life on earth. If air and water are polluted, where shall we be in a
December 11, 1968

Proposed Committee on Pollution few years? When we look at statistics available to us, which we do not have time to quote in the house, we are astounded by the seriousness of the problem.
In my opinion, this notice of motion should be accepted, and I blame the government for not introducing legislation likely to settle this problem, which should not be considered any further but actually solved.


Mr. Bruce Howard (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, when I came to this house I had in mind one very important thing, and that was to work toward a solution of the pollution problem that affects the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. Those who have travelled through that part of the country are aware of the beauty of the area and the tragedy that can befall such a beautiful place when pollution gets beyond the control of the normal agencies of the community. Although this is the situation, it is not so because the community has not done a great deal. It has done all in its power to control pollution in the area.
When I came to Ottawa I discovered that the federal government also had been doing a great deal about this problem. I am very pleased in respect of what the government at Ottawa has been doing. Many of the measures which have been taken by the government have been mentioned this afternoon such as the Canadian centre for the administration of waters in respect of which $23 million has been spent, and the regional pollution control centres in Moncton and Calgary. The federal government has offered to pay the full cost of regional assistance in this regard. It has also recommended the establishment of a national advisory committee. All these things were suggested and discussed at the conference on pollution that was conducted by the federal and provincial governments in the fall of 1966.
This conference produced some very admirable and useful recommendations. Above all, it was suggested that a national advisory committee should be set up on the problem of pollution. It was further suggested that this committee should be composed of representatives of the federal government, the provincial government, the universities and industry. The purpose of this committee would be to establish water quality standards in Canada. We do not know what pure water is; we
[Mr. Rondeau.l

do not have any laid-down standards concerning what is pure water or pure air. We know we must accept some limitation in respect of purity because of the inroads of civilization. But how much? This is something we do not know. The national advisory committee was asked to identify pollution problems in respect of their effect on the economy of the country. These are very worth-while and important objectives.
There are other things the federal government has done. It has offered to provide joint studies in respect of many of the problems related to pollution. We have an example before us with regard to the Ottawa river. The government has offered to bring together the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Here again, however, very little or perhaps nothing has happened because the provincial governments have not agreed to act together on this matter. This has been the situation all down the line in respect of these recommendations. Time after time the problem has been one of a jurisdictional dispute among the municipal, provincial and federal governments.
This is a field in which the committee proposed by this resolution would have value. The committee would be a political organization which would have an opportunity to handle the problem at a political level. Many inquiries have been made and a great deal of work has been done by very capable public servants of the country both at the provincial and at the federal level. But the problem is a political problem which must be decided by people in public life. The advantage of this committee would be that it could inquire into the problems, interview witnesses, and discuss the actions that should be taken by both the provincial and federal governments.
The time has almost expired and as I am most anxious to see this resolution passed today I shall sit down so that the motion may be put.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the hon. member mention the problem of divided jurisdiction. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the fact that in the townsites of Banff and Jasper, which are entirely within federal jurisdiction, no provincial or municipal government has any authority whatsoever. Yet raw sewage is being dumped into the Athabasca and Bow Rivers. This underscores the fact that something
December 11, 1968	COMMONS
must be done to see that in areas which have been set aside specifically so that they will be preserved for future generations this type of pollution does not exist. Pollution does not occur only in large urban areas. It occurs equally in the remote areas where the rivers originate. Again this is an indication that there must be some new study of this very great problem. The resolution does not go far enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.
DEBATES	3843
Proposed Committee on Pollution Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):
Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being six o'clock this house now stands adjourned until 2.30 tomorrow afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 12, 1968