1968-09-25

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting revised estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1969, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it may be of assistance to the house to have a brief statement on the revised estimates for 1968-69 which have just been placed on the table. The original estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969 were tabled during the last session of parliament. However, their consideration was not completed during that session, so that estimates for the current year must be introduced during this session.
Last March the then minister of finance gave an undertaking to the house to reduce expenditures for 1968-69 by $75 million and to table a revised schedule of estimates. The revised estimates just tabled reflect reductions of some $80 million in controllable programs for which funds have to be voted annually by parliament. These reductions are shown by department and agency on columns 2 of pages 6A and 6C of the revised blue book.
Certain other developments which have occurred since March have made it necessary and desirable to amend further the original estimates. On July 12 last the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced certain transfers of functions among ministers. These changes are also reflected in the revised estimates; and departments and agencies have been grouped under the minister responsible for them.
The passage of time since last winter, when the original estimates for 1968-69 were prepared, has made it possible to up-date and refine expenditure forecasts for statutory programs which are traditionally shown in the
blue book, but for which funds do not have to be voted annually. In addition, we have included in the revision expenditure estimates for two statutory items which do not appear in the original estimates. I should like to emphasize that, with respect to all these statutory items, parliament has already appropriated the necessary funds in the substantive legislation which authorized these expenditures.
For most of these statutory programs, payments by the federal government are determined by a number of factors defined in the legislation itself and the government has no choice but to make the payments called for, unless parliament decides to modify the legislation. For instance, payments to provinces under the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act, under the Canada Assistance Plan and for post secondary education depend upon the level of expenditures incurred by the provinces which the federal government must then match.
In order to present to parliament up to date estimates of total budgetary expenditures for 1968-69, a number of statutory items-identified on page 6C of the blue book-have been revised upwards by $433 million in total. I should add that the increases in the three programs I have just mentioned account for some $229 million of the total. Another $67 million of the total increase is attributable to additional public debt charges, and the inclusion-for the first time this year-of statutory expenditures for medicare and last June's general election account for a further $49 million.
Finally, we have included in the revision the following essential requirements, totalling $33 million, for which parliament will be asked to appropriate funds. An additional amount to cover the anticipated operating loss of the Farm Credit Corporation during 196869 of $1,400,000; payments to the United States mint for coin production to meet the high demand for coinage, $210,000; additional provision for the Treasury Board contingencies vote for anticipated public service salary adjustments arising out of collective bargaining, $25 million; an addition to the original provision for the government's share of the premiums for the group surgical-medical
446	COMMONS
Financial Administration Act insurance plan required as a result of the participation in medicare of fewer provinces than expected, $6,218,000. In total, these changes bring budgetary expenditures for 1968-69 to a figure of $10,671 billion.
The house will be aware that the estimates blue book contains not only the anticipated expenditures of a budgetary nature but also lists those loans, investments and advances which parliament is asked to vote. Since the original main estimates were prepared, several essential requirements have arisen. A list of these, which total $200,026,812, will be found on page 6D of the revised blue book. The bulk of this requirement is accounted for by two large items, neither of which appeared in the original estimates. They are: additional contributions to the International Development Association, $81,081,000; and deposits in the Bank for International Settlements in Basle in support of sterling, $107,343,750. These additional requirements bring the loans total for 1968-69 to $684 million.
I trust that hon. members will find useful the statement on pages 6A, 6B, 6C and 6D of the revised estimates which shows for each department and agency the relationship of original estimates to the revised estimates for 1968-69.
I move:
That the message of His Excellency, together with the estimates presented this day, be referred to the committee of supply.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield, Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question for clarification purposes. Am I correct in assuming that the estimates that are being tabled today are in fact some $400 million higher than the estimates tabled last spring?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there has been an increase in the total of the estimates-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that it is irregular to have debate on this type of matter. It is in order, under the standing orders, for spokesmen on behalf of opposition parties to make comments. I see the hon. member for Edmonton West seeks the floor.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect the question put by my leader was of great help. After all, since we have no copy of the blue book but have heard only the lengthy statement the minister read out, it is impossible to

DEBATES	September 25, 1968
make any meaningful comment other than to say, "Well, tomorrow we shall have interim supply and very likely we shall have more to say."
In so far as, shall we say, the accuracy and nature of the estimates, my only comment is that of course the government has had six months experience in refining and honing these estimates.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: And in trimming the taxpayer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of course the money has already been spent. The government knows what is contained in the estimates and it knows that what it will present really are not estimates. We shall be looking at some sort of quasi public accounts. I think we shall have more to say about that tomorrow.


Mr. Baldwin:: We have a $400 million bill here.


Mr. Woolliams:: What happened to the philosophy of pay as you go?


Gerald William Baldwin: It's go as you pay.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, by leave I would like to table the report to the House of Commons, of September, 1968, being a statement showing special warrants issued under section 28 of the Financial Administration Act following dissolution of parliament on April 23, 1968.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister table this report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



STATEMENT RESPECTING ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I should like to make a statement in connection with the attendance of ministers in the House of Commons during question period. It has been the practice in the Canadian House
September 25. 1968

of Commons for as many ministers as possible to attend daily at that time. The desirability of continuing this practice has been questioned. For example, the special committee of the House of Commons on procedure of the house stated in its fourth report:
We believe that a minister ought to have more to do than to sit in the chamber each day just in case a question may come his way.
The problems of government today require in the national interest that ministers have more time to devote to departmental business than is now available during the day. In an attempt to provide extra time to ministers, a change was made last spring in the system whereby the cabinet handles its business. The cabinet committee system was restructured and regular meetings of the cabinet committees are now scheduled. This has permitted the cabinet and its committees to examine more thoroughly and expeditiously the ever-increasing number of matters before it. At the same time, the meetings of the cabinet committees have been scheduled in such a way that each minister will be free from committee attendance on certain days of the week.
I am now asking the co-operation of the house in the trial of an arrangement with respect to ministerial attendance during the daily question period. I am proposing that all ministers will attend on Wednesdays, and each minister will attend, in addition, on two other days each week. I will try to be here when orders of the day are called each day.
A roster of ministers in attendance on different days will be prepared and provided to members. It will, of necessity, remain fixed and will be subject to variation only in very exceptional circumstances. This is necessary if the ministers are to have an adequate opportunity to administer their portfolios, and if hon. members are to know each day which ministers will be in attendance.
uj commons
This is fundamental to our system. I suggest that the proposed arrangement does not conflict with that principle or with its effective operation. I do feel that the relatively small disadvantage of not having every minister in attendance every day for possible questioning on precisely that day is far outweighed by the advantage to the public interest in providing the ministers with more time to devote to administration and planning, while still being available three days out of five to answer questions.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
In closing, I want to emphasize that I am not proposing a rota system of the kind now followed at Westminster. That system works in such a way that very often only one minister answers questions on any one day after a period of notice sometimes as long as three weeks. I am asking this house, under these arrangements, to try a situation in which one half of the ministers would be here every day of the week except Wednesday, when all of them would be here. I assume that, at least for the moment, it is not the intention of the house to impose a notice requirement more stringent than what now prevails.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: It is most regrettable that the Prime Minister and the government should have chosen to make a unilateral decision on a matter which so vitally affects the relationship between ministers of the crown and the House of Commons. It is particularly unfortunate in the light of the fact that the house recently reached agreement on provisional rules, establishing a reference of the question of permanent rules to a committee which is to be set up. It is, I think, most regrettable that this question, along with other important questions to be considered, was not referred to the committee rather than decided unilaterally by the government.
It is only after very careful consideration of both the parliamentary and executive responsibilities of the government that I am proposing this arrangement. I fully realize the importance of members being able to question the ministers of the crown on important matters relating to the policy and actions of the government. There is no doubt in my mind about the need to keep ministers answerable to this house, or about the key role of the question period in enabling members on both sides of the chamber to make ministerial responsibility a fact of our parliamentary life.
29180-29}
I am at a loss to understand why the government should have felt it necessary to take this unilateral course of action on a matter of such importance, especially when the committee is to report back with regard to permanent rules by December 1. Why was a matter of such importance to the house not referred to the committee instead of being decided by the government itself?
I am not in a position to question the authority of the government to take this decision, but it is clear that the length of the question period has been covered by the provisional rules, the rules now in effect. In

September 25, 1968
House of Commons
other words, this is a general subject which has been covered by the traditions and, specifically, by the rules of the house and I do not think it is a very good omen for the future consideration of our rules when this kind of unilateral decision is taken by the government especially, as I said, after agreement relating to provisional rules had been reached and shortly before a committee is to go to work on the whole question.
I notice in passing that the day on which all the ministers are to be here is about the shortest question period of the week-30 minutes. I simply want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think this is regrettable. I think it indicates the attitude of the government toward the house. I think a unilateral decision of this sort tends to downgrade this house. I ask the Prime Minister and his colleagues not to proceed with the matter in this way, but to refer it, along with the general question of rules, to the committee that the house has authorized to be established.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in registering a protest against this unilateral decision, and I also join with the Leader of the Opposition in asking the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government to suspend putting this system into operation until the matter has been considered by the special committee which was agreed to yesterday by a unanimous decision of the house.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition was too strong at all in suggesting this is a slight that is being handed to this house. As a matter of fact I think it is offensive-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -the day after we agreed unanimously to a committee on procedure, the day after this very question was discussed across the floor of the house and opposition was expressed to it, for the government to make this announcement today. I must point out that the very work of the special committee is already jeopardized.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have had pretty satisfactory discussions among house leaders and 1 felt from those discussions that we could have an effective

committee. Almost immediately, however, the question will arise that if we do not agree to something the government wants, then the government will do it unilaterally.
I hope the Prime Minister will reconsider.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: We are the masters of this house.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
Prime Minister stood in his place today and paid lip service to two principles. One is that it is the essence of our system that members of parliament meet the cabinet, meet the ministers across the floor of this house. The second principle affecting our system is the importance of the question period. But I say this is only lip service when the Prime Minister turns around and says that on certain days we are not going to be able to meet the ministers, on certain days we are not going to be able to exercise the question period as we have been exercising it in the house for many years.
1 want to urge for the consideration of the Prime Minister and others, and for the consideration of our friends of the press, that the question period is not one of the main trouble spots in the procedures of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: During the question period members are here and the galleries are full. A certain amount of political warfare does take place, but without political warfare parliament is not parliament. I suggest that this whole aim to downgrade the question period, to have some ministers not here, is a backward step in terms of the operation of the House of Commons.
1 point out one other thing. One of the problems we have in the House of Commons-we have it in all parties and there are times when we have it in ours as much as in others-is maintaining full attendance in this chamber. The house is not always fully attended all day, as members know. Now we are going to have the example that during the question period, which is regarded as a most important period when attendance has been full, some of the ministers, up to half of them on most days, will not be here.
I think this is bad for the image of parliament, and I hope that those who write about the image of parliament will say so. The Leader of the Opposition has already referred to the fact that it is a bit of an empty gesture to have all the ministers here on Wednesday.
September 25, 1968

On that day the question period lasts only 30 minutes, but we are to have all the ministers here then, with their knowing that many of the questions to be asked will not get to them.
If we are going to have a question period like this, let us have it on Monday when we have an hour, or let us have an hour for the question period on Wednesday; but either way I think it is a retrograde step. It downgrades the importance of the question period, the time when the political warfare takes place. Above all, Mr. Speaker, I think it is an offence, an insult, a slight to parliament for this unilateral decision to be announced the very day after we, in good faith, unanimously agreed to set up a special committee to study the rules and procedures of the house. I hope the government will reconsider its position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)

Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere) Mr. Speaker. niy first words on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste will be to say that the statement just made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is an act of sabotage with regard to a democratic government which must be responsible and which is answerable to the House of Commons.
I have the impression Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has made a mistake by failing to ask the views of the various opposition parties before making a statement which cancels yesterday's very interesting and very brilliant discussions about the creation of a committee to study parliamentary reform.
We fully agree with the Prime Minister that the government and the ministers should be more efficient, because there is room for improvement there. However, if cold water is thrown on democracy right here in the Canadian parliament, without any warning being given to the opposition members, that amounts, in my opinion, to an act of sabotage which should be unanimously condemned.
On that matter, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, fully agree with the proposals made by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Messrs. Stanfield and Knowles), who have just blamed the government.
Mr. Speaker, we are against this proposal even though it seeks to increase the efficiency of the government. We would rather have the matter referred to the parliamentary committee set up last night, and we should make use of it.
Area Incentive Program Changes To save democracy, we therefore ask the Prime Minister to revise his position as soon as possible.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to outline the plans of the government concerning its policy on subsidies to encourage industrial expansion in those areas where exceptional intervention is necessary to improve the employment situation.
As we have done regularly in the past, we have continued to check the designated areas periodically on the basis of the present criteria, in order to determine whether changes should be made.
As a result of that analysis, we added a new area to the list, namely the one which corresponds to the Levis federal manpower centre, near Quebec. Neighbouring areas of Ville Saint-George, Megantic and Montmagny have, for some time, been included in a designated area. Levis is in the same economic area, that of the Chaudiere valley, which on the whole meets the requirements for eligibility. The low level of average income for non-agricultural families is only one indication of the underemployment which exists in that area.
That is the only change made in the list of designated areas under the present rules of the program, Mr. Speaker. However, the government is considering much more important changes in the future.
The proposed changes will be implemented in two stages, since there are two acts governing the program. First of all, an area is designated according to the second part of the Department of Industry Act. However, the actual ways in which financial assistance is given to the eligible areas are set out in the Area Development Incentives Act.
The second part of the Department of Industry Act will therefore be replaced by the bill on the reorganization of the government which will, among other things, suggest the creation of a new department to take over the work of various agencies which, up until now, have dealt with different aspects of economic development.
In order to avoid uncertainty in the business world, I would like to emphasize that the government does not want reorganisation
450	COMMONS
Area Incentive Program Changes to result in the elimination of the program relating to the underdeveloped regions. As long as new legislation concerning incentives has not been introduced, those incentives will be made available throughout the regions now considered underdeveloped under the law being administered by the Department of Industry.
Furthermore, the bill concerning government reorganization that will be introduced shortly will establish the basic principles under which underdeveloped regions will be recognized. Therefore, I agree with the Prime Minister's comments on this subject a few months ago. Consequently, a region will be considered underdeveloped either because it has a low level of employment in the region concerned or because employment is low on the whole territory including that region.
This policy is much less restrictive than the one prevailing in the past. Its first results will be particularly important for the Maritime provinces. Should parliament adopt this new principle, the result will entail the admission of the three regions now under the responsibility of the Maritime provinces manpower centre that have until now, been excluded from the program. Those regions, Mr. Speaker, are Halifax, St. John (N.B.) and Fredericton. It is our intention that the incentives being offered by the development agency shall be made available to these regions, and that will be possible as soon as parliament has agreed to the government recommendations concerning reorganization.
I would like to say a few words about the second group of changes that we propose to introduce. These changes are related to the present incentive program.
The legislation governing incentives for the development of certain regions will expire on a precise date. Grants are only available for those projects which will be completed or in operation on March 31, 1971. In view of the fact that two years or more might elapse between the formulation of a project and its realization, new legislation will soon be necessary. It is the intention of the government to introduce such legislation very early next year.
That legislation will follow a serious study of the whole depressed areas incentive program. The review has already advanced far enough for me to state that it will involve significant changes. I hope that we might avoid some aspects of the program in operation, which have not been very productive

DEBATES	September 25, 1968
and, at the same time, we want the incentives to bring about results where the need is the greatest.
As I said earlier, it is very important not to leave the industry unaware of what is going on during the review period. That is why I wish to emphasize at this time that the government in its new legislation will propose transitional measures in order to protect the interests of corporations which are now planning to invest in the designated areas. If those corporations are eligible for incentives under the present legislation, those incentives will be made available to them and will be paid to them even though, for major reasons, the industry concerned will be able to start its production only after March 31, 1971, the deadline in the present legislation.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the government has today recognized what has been known by almost everyone in this house for the last five years; that is, that the three manpower regions in the maritimes should be designated. What is disappointing in the statement made today is that there seems to be no realization that if an area development program is to be a true development program it should be based on a better criterion than unemployment. We know that unemployment is a serious problem. We have raised this matter with the government on different occasions.
An area development program cannot solve the problem of unemployment. We need a greater and more general policy than that. An area program should be one which would take into consideration the potential growth of the area rather than treat an area as a charity case. As is the case now, in many instances the area development program has been a cruel hoax or promise held out to the people which did not materialize, and which did not increase their prosperity.
I hope that when the minister develops the program he will establish a new department to co-ordinate the various programs which exist now and that he will seriously consider the importance of seeking new criteria of long term growth and stability for the areas, rather than what I think is the technically faulty criterion of unemployment. It is not adequate for the purpose and does not solve the problems of the people who are involved in these areas.
September 25, 1968


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to say to my friend the minister that I am pleased that the policy regarding designated areas is being revised to make it possible to treat the maritime region as a designated area, which I think is the effect of what he has announced. I also understand that the minister stated the program has a limited life and will expire in 1971. This statement therefore, by itself, so far as anything firm is concerned, is of limited value and will be effective for a limited period. The important thing is the policy that the minister proposes to introduce. Naturally I will not try to pass judgment on that in advance, but I am sure the whole country is looking forward with great interest to an announcement of its contents.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
Let me emphasize again that for any policy to be effective for the development of regions of slow growth there must be a very high degree of co-ordination of the policies of governments. Certainly if this policy is to be effective we must have a very high degree of co-ordination of the policies and the departments of this government.
I am concerned that the program the government has in mind involving the establishment of a new department with certain responsibilities of a regional nature will fall far short of obtaining the required co-ordination, and may have the disadvantage of encouraging other ministers to feel that they no longer have any responsibility for the development of regional policy.
Let me emphasize once again, before the government presents its policy to the house, the importance of this highest possible degree of co-ordination for the development of regional policy in areas of slow growth, if it is to be at all effective. As I have said, we are looking forward with great interest to an announcement of specific policies and programs, and I hope the minister will be able to make this announcement at an early date.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the statement made by the hon. Minister of Forestry and Rural Development and there is no doubt that the member for Levis (Mr. Guay) was happy to hear it. I understand that the decision to make the region of the city of Levis a designated area fulfils an election promise which could not have been kept otherwise.
As for the Maritime provinces, I think that they will welcome the improvements the
Area Incentive Program Changes minister intends to bring by way of designating areas. We must not believe that the Mari-times are the only provinces which got very little out of the legislation on designated areas, as we knew it before.
For example, my riding is encircled, as in a horseshoe, by neighbouring designated areas, especially on the Ontario side. Therefore, and for the greater good of my area-Abitibi, that I know well-I should like to ask the Minister to recognize that there exists a third criteria in the manner of designating the areas. We know that the low level of employment, the high level of unemployment, the low salaries contribute to designate an area.
In my view, the minister should also admit the fact that the decreasing demography of an area should be taken into consideration while designating areas in order to incite new industries to establish there and stabilize the economy.
Those are the remarks that I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement made by the minister. Later, when more direct propositions are made concerning the establishment of a new department, we will have at that time the opportunity to express our point of view.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief statement regarding the action that has been taken and the action contemplated to deal with the serious situation in the corn marketing areas of Ontario.
As you will be aware, there have been a number of questions directed to me from both sides of the house during the past few days. In addition to that, I have received representations from the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Ontario Farmers Union and many other organizations representing corn producers in Ontario. They have suggested solutions, or partial solutions such as accelerated depreciation on storage, freight assistance, price support levels, extended research for some new and better varieties and restrictions on imports of com.
I have been discussing this matter with the Minister of Agriculture for Ontario because obviously some of the solutions suggested clearly lie within the jurisdiction of the province. I simply want to advise members now



September 25, 1968
Action to Help in Corn Marketing that as soon as possible, and this will be within a few days or perhaps early next week, as soon as the officials of my department and the officials of the Ontario department of agriculture can work out the details of what can be done, we intend to have a meeting of the two ministers and their officials to try and work out a solution that will be effective.
After examining the problem and the suggested solutions we hold the opinion as of this date that concurrent action by both levels of government within their jurisdiction is the only effective solution to the problem.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, speaking as a representative of this party and of the farmers of this country I should like to say that the statement by the Minister of Agriculture today is in its entirety unacceptable to the farmers of this nation. For 18 months we have been pointing out to the government, as have the farm organizations, the state of the economic climate surrounding this great commodity. Many of the farm organizations have made at least four representations to this government in the last few months. At this time, when we are in the middle of the harvest for this year and when the market has collapsed already to such a degree it is quite apparent that the farmers of this nation will not recover their investments, the minister stands in his place and says this is a joint responsibility between the federal and provincial governments. At this late date he is suggesting that we call in the ministers of the provinces concerned to meet with the federal department to discuss this problem in order to see whether some solution can be found.
The minister has spoken of research in respect of new varieties, freight subsidies, and whether or not some restrictions can be placed on the importation of this commodity into this country. The farmers of this great nation expected concrete efforts on the part of this government, and an announcement today outlining the ways and means whereby a minimum price acceptable to the farmers would be established in order that advantage might be taken of that price during the current crop year.
The members of this party and the farmers of this nation will realize that the action taken by the government today will do nothing to alleviate the suffering and that it is an attempt to gain time. If this course is followed I doubt very much whether any action will be taken in time to help the farmers in

respect of the 1969 harvest, let alone the harvest about to take place.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) asking him whether some assistance would be given to farmers in the form of accelerated depreciation for grain storage in order to help them with storage problems, not only in the corn area of Ontario but also in the wheat area in western Canada. With regard to the second matter, regarding wheat, I did not hear him make any statement of the government's intention to assist the farmers there. We are faced with a very serious problem of grain storage in western Canada which, as has been pointed out with regard to corn, was evident six months ago. It has now been compounded by the extremely difficult harvesting conditions, and according to the latest report certain areas in western Canada may well be facing disaster for much of the harvest. I would appreciate an early statement as to the assistance which may be given with regard to storage and a clarification of the additional provision made for drying grain, because we will have a great deal of damp, tough and damaged grain, and I think we should have a statement in this regard very early.


Mr. Adrien Lamberi (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, like the other members, I just took cognizance of the statement delivered by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), concerning corn in the province of Ontario.
I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary to the hon. minister (Mr. Cote) whether similar steps have been taken in cooperation with the Quebec Agriculture Department authorities in order to find a solution to the same problem existing in that province. Corn growing in the province of Quebec is increasing from year to year and the Quebec producers are obviously more and more interested in getting subsidies from the federal government, through agreement. The problem lies obviously within the federal and provincial jurisdictions and concerns agriculture in the province of Quebec. Therefore, as a representative of the farmers in the eastern area of that province, I would suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Minister of Agriculture, if this has not been done yet, to enter into negotiations with the province of Quebec, for the benefit of the farmers in the eastern area of that province.
September 25, 1968



PARLIAMENTARY SESSIONS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-104, to provide for the length of sessions of parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, this bill would plan the sessions of parliament, and particularly the sittings of the House of Commons. I introduced a similar bill to this one in the last parliament and it was debated for an hour.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: Norih Centre):
1.	How many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, by provinces, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada and by provinces, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces what is the number for each province?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As of July 31, 1968:
Newfoundland	26,012
Prince Edward Island	10,603
Nova Scotia	60,020
New Brunswick	44,857
Quebec	314,030
Ontario	506,714
Manitoba	78,936
Saskatchewan	78,507
Alberta	92,355
British Columbia	163,546
Northwest Territories }	
Yukon )	1,020
Total	1,376,600
Questions	
As of July 31, 1968:	
Newfoundland	21,222
Prince Edward Island	7,818
Nova Scotia	38,829
New Brunswick	28,732
Quebec	191,536
Ontario	230,712
Manitoba	43,932
Saskatchewan	40,661
Alberta	50,667
British Columbia	81,096
Northwest Territories i	t
Yukon	1 760
Total	735,965
As of July 31, 1968:	
Newfoundland	17,540
Prince Edward Island	5,310
Nova Scotia	25,763
New Brunswick	20,567
Quebec	133,060
Ontario	124,994
Manitoba	25,572
Saskatchewan	23,692
Alberta	30,810
British Columbia	47,613
Northwest Territories ]	
Yukon	696
Total	455,617
As of July 31, 1968:	
Newfoundland	$28.69
Prince Edward Island	27.21
Nova Scotia	27.35
New Brunswick	27.70
Quebec	28.06
Ontario	25.88
Manitoba	26.62
Saskatchewan	26.69
Alberta	27.42
British Columbia	25.74
Northwest Territories )	
Yukon \	30.30
Canada	$26.77
5. Yes.
Statistical records are maintained of the number of Old Age Security pensioners who are being paid while outside of Canada. These records include both pensioners permanently residing outside of Canada and pensioners visiting outside of Canada.

September 25, 1968
Questions
As of July 31, 1968:
Newfoundland	95
Prince Edward Island	49
Nova Scotia	307
New Brunswick	269
Quebec	2,227
Ontario	4,392
Manitoba	570
Saskatchewan	495
Alberta	611
British Columbia	2,860
Northwest Territories j	
Yukon i	9
Total	11,884


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


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a) Nil; (b) 1; (c) 5; (d) 8; (e) 18; (f) 40; (g) 51; (h) 45; (i) 54; (j) 401; (k) 387; (1) 336; (m) 279; (n) 597.
2.	(a) 7; (b) 11; (c) 10; (d) 19; (e) 21; (f) 22; (g) 11; (h) 8; (i) 12; (j) 55; (k) 27; (1) 10; (m) 5; (n) 5.
3.
Province	Retired Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	26	2Prince Edward Island	16	NilNova Scotia	179	10New Brunswick	78	6Quebec	168	7Ontario	494	51Manitoba	117	11Saskatchewan	139	5Province	Retired Personnel	WidowsAlberta	314	30British Columbia	593	92Northwest Territories	14	NilOutside Canada	84	94.	109, Average $21.72 per month.


R.C.M.P. SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
2.	What rate of interest does the Government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?


George James McIlraith: 1.	(a) March 31, 1964, $45,986,906.99; (b) March 31, 1965, $57,706,948.59; (c) March 31, 1966, $65,411,253.45; (d) March 31, 1967, $85,081,315.27; (e) March 31, 1968, $104,724,111.76.
2.	Interest is credited to the Superannuation Account on the last day of each quarter in each fiscal year, namely, on the 30th day of June, on the 30th day of September, on the 31st day of December and on the 31st day of March, respectively, calculated at the rate of one per cent of the balance to the credit of the account on the last day of the preceding quarter.
3.	(a) March 31, 1964, $1,576,978.32; (b) March 31, 1965, $1,929,488.33; (c) March 31, 1966, $2,420,759.75; (d) March 31, 1967, $2,841,067.52; (e) March 31, 1968, $3,534,722.02;
4.	(a) March 31,1964, $573,195.38; (b) March 31, 1965, $666,752.98; (c) March 31, 1966, $848,113.32; (d) March 31, 1967, $972,646.84; (e) March 31, 1968, $988,991.22.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the following brackets: (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g)
September 25, 1968

$70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
Hon. Leo Cadieux	(Minister of	NationalDefence): 1. (a) 16; (b) 76; i	Cc) 251;	(d) 329;(e) 351; (f) 316; (g) 499; (h)	618; (i)	717; (j)3,626; (k) 4,364; (1) 4,232; (m)	2,767; (n) 4,342.	2. (a) 2; (b) 22; (c)	62; (d)	157; (e)	229; (f)244; (g) 203; (h) 202;	(i) 188;	(j) 591;	(k) 227;(1) 98; (m) 41; (n) 34.	3. Province Retired Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	59	7Prince Edward Island	133	11Nova Scotia	2,296	159New Brunswick	509	83Quebec	2,314	232Ontario	9,172	1,026Manitoba	769	101Saskatchewan	277	48Alberta	1,413	132British Columbia	4,751	393Northwest Territories	and Yukon	362	1Outside Canada	449	1074. 57; $29.13.


CANADIAN FORCES SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
2.	What rate of interest does the government pay for the use of this money?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1964 (b) March 31, 1965 (c) March 31, 1966 (d) March 31, 1967 (e) March 31, 1968?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (e) $2,723,268,313.
29180-30^
Questions
2.	Hansard, page 10701, dated December 5, 1966 refers.
3.	(e) $105,247,171.
4.	(e) $51,853,044.
See reply to Question No. 690, page 4562 of Hansard, dated November 22, 1967, for the remainder of the reply.


CITIZENSHIP COURT
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many judges sit in the Citizenship Court?
2.	How many cases were heard by the Citizenship Court in 1965, in 1966 and in 1967?
3.	Where does this Court have its Record Office?
4.	Does this Court sit across Canada?
5.	What is the jurisdiction of this Court?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Citizenship Branch as follows: 1. The Governor in Council may designate any court or person in any part of Canada to act as a Court for the purposes of the Canadian Citizenship Act, and any officer of the Canadian forces outside of Canada to act as a Court for the purpose of dealing with applications for citizenship made by persons serving in the armed forces of Canada outside Canada. A Court is defined in the act as meaning any superior, circuit, county or district court including in the Province of Quebec, any district magistrate as well as any court or person designated to act as a Court for the purposes of the act. In addition to courts defined by the act, 15 magistrates courts in Newfoundland have been so designated as have 56 persons across the country. Fourteen of these persons operate full time courts in 13 different locations while the remaining 42 handle cases on an occasional basis in areas remote from the normal facilities.
2. It is not possible to give the exact number of cases heard in Canada during a year because statistics are not always available on cases rejected or deferred by the courts of law. However, a very close approximation of the total number of cases heard in Canada may be given as follows: (a) 1965, 32,902; (b) 1966, 31,975; (c) 1967, 33,376.
3. All court records dealing with cases under the Canadian Citizenship Act are now forwarded to the office of the Registrar of Canadian Citizenship in Ottawa. Although this was also the practice prior to amendment of the Act in July, 1967, before that time records of applicants rejected or deferred by the normal courts of law were not so forwarded.

September 25, 1968
Questions
4.	Yes.
5.	To examine alien and such other applicants for citizenship as may be referred to them in order to determine if they possess the required qualifications and whether they are not fit and proper persons to be granted citizenship. Upon grant of citizenship by the Minister to administer the oath of allegiance and deliver the certificate. In the conduct of proceedings under the act, by appropriate ceremonies, to impress upon the applicants the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship.


CANADIAN FORCES SHIPS IN COMMISSION
Mr. Harkness: As of July 31, 1968, how many ships were in commission in the naval component of the Canadian Forces and what is the breakdown of these ships by class?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As of July 31, 1968, 45: 1 Aircraft Carrier; 1 Operational Support Ship; 1 Repair Ship; 11 Destroyer Escorts; 9 Helicopter Destroyers; 6 Coastal Minesweepers; 4 Submarines; 4 Gate Vessels; 2 Yachts (Seamanship and Pilotage Training); 3 Diving Tenders; 3 Passenger Yard Craft (Cadet Training).


STRENGTH OF ARMED FORCES
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What was the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces as at July 31, 1968?
2.	As at July 31, what was the number of (a) officers (b) other ranks?
3.	What is the number of women included in parts 1 and 2 above?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As of July 1, 1968: 1. 99,817.
2.	(a) 17,793; (b) 82,024.
3.	1,685; (a) 561; (b) 1,124.


COMPLETION OF BUILDING, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date was the Young Offender's Penal Institution in Springhill turned over to the federal government?
2.	On what date did the Canadian Penitentiary Service start moving inmates into this institution?
3.	What is the capacity of this institution from an inmate point of view?


George James McIlraith: 1.	February 20, 1967.
2.	September 5, 1967.
3.	450 inmates.


STAFF AND INMATE POPULATION, SPRINGHILL PENAL INSTITUTION
Mr. Coales: 1.	What is the present staff of the Young Offender's Penal Institution at Springhill and what will be the total staff requirement when the institution has a full complement of inmates?
2.	What is the present inmate population at this institution and for what reason has the inmate population not reached the full quota?


George James McIlraith: 1.	On August 31, 1968, the staff strength was 192. The total staff requirement when the institution has a full complement of inmates will be 241.
2.	On September 10, 1968, the inmate population was 119. The inmate population cannot reach the full quota until after completion of the construction of the inmate activities' building now scheduled for early 1969.


* PUBLIC SERVICE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING, ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. Coates: 1.	Has the Public Service of Canada, represented by the Treasury Board, initiated collective bargaining with the representatives of the employees in the trades, labour and service occupations in the Atlantic Provinces using as the basis for these negotiations the prevailing rates of similar occupations to these groups in the locale of their employment?
2.	Does the Public Service of Canada at the present time adhere, for permanent employees, to a policy of equal pay for equal work regardless of the location of the employee of the Public Service and, if not, when was a new policy formulated and what groups of employees does it cover?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The Treasury Board has entered collective bargaining with the bargaining agent for the occupational groups of "general services" and "general labour and trades" which include employees in the Atlantic provinces as well as other parts of Canada. Since these negotiations have not yet been completed, it would not be appropriate to reveal positions taken by the parties during the negotiations.
2.	The government has had, for many years, a policy of paying rates of pay based on those prevailing in the locality under a variety of regulations, such as the prevailing rate employees general regulations (1949), the ships crews regulations (1954) and the ships officers regulations (1950). The practice of reflecting rates prevailing in the locality has been continued in the collective agreements
September 25, 1968

recently negotiated for employees in the ship repair and the printing operations groups in the operational category.


CANADIAN COMMONWEALTH CONTRIBUTION TO ENGLAND
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Does Canada, as a member of the British Commonwealth, pay a contribution to England?
2.	If so, what was the amount of contribution for 1967?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No. 2. Not applicable. See No. 1 above.


WINTER WORKS PROJECTS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. MacRae: 1.	What was the total amount of money paid out by the federal government for Winter Works Projects in New Brunswick in the fiscal years (a)
1965-	66 (b) 1966-67 (c) 1967-68?
2.	What was the total federal share for Winter Works Projects in all provinces in the fiscal year
1966-	67?
3.	How many man-days of labour were provided
by Winter Works Projects in New Brunswick during the fiscal years (a) 1965-66 (b)	1966-67 (c)
1967-	68?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Figures by fiscal year are not available. The following are given for the program in the winters of 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68. Those for 1967-68 are estimated since most claims are still outstanding.
1.	(a) $592,684.95; (b) $233,396.43; (c) $163,000.00 (estimated).
2.	$32,289,876.73.
3.	(a) 54,839; (b) 27,882; (c) 22,756 (estimated).


ORDERS IN COUNCIL SINCE 1963
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many Orders in Council have been passed in each year 1963 to 1967 inclusive, and in 1968 to date?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister):: Orders of the Governor in Council passed during the years indicated are as follows: During 1963, totalled 3,757 of which 1,836 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by the Governor in Council; during 1964, totalled 3,994 of which 1,951 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by the Governor in Council; during 1965, totalled 4,574 of which 2,238 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by
Questions
the Governor in Council; during 1966, totalled 4,827 of which 2,364 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by the Governor in Council; during 1967, totalled 4,056 of which 1,654 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by the Governor in Council; and during 1968 up to and including September 12, totalled 2,659 of which 896 were minutes of the Treasury Board approved by the Governor in Council.


DIRECTOR OF COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has the Director of the Company of Young Canadians been appointed?
2.	If not, why the delay?
3.	When did the position become vacant?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. No.
2.	The Provisional Council of the Company of Young Canadians at its meeting of June 15th, 1968 established a special committee to supervise the selection for a permanent Executive Director. The position was advertised, and a number of applicants have been interviewed. The Council expects to make a recommendation to the Governor-In-Council following its next meeting, in October.
3.	June 15th, 1968.


REFORM UNDERTAKING BY NEW SENATORS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Have any Senators been appointed on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who have undertaken to vote for measures to reform the Senate of Canada?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such undertaking and by whom given?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of the summoning to the Senate of the Hon. Hedard J. Robichaud, I publicly stated that there was no change in the government's previously announced policy that the role and the powers of the Senate should be reviewed in order to make that body a more effective institution of federalism. Thus, all persons appointed to the Senate on my recommendation would be aware that changes were contemplated, and that their co-operation would be sought to the degree necessary to implement these changes at the appropriate time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Another Roosevelt.

September 25, 1968
Questions


REFERENCE CATALOGUE, INDIAN AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What was the total, all inclusive, cost of producing the publication entitled "Reference Catalogue for Parliamentarians" by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. The
cost of producing the publication entitled Reference Catalogue for Parliamentarians was $3,190.00


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer): 1.	What are the required qualifications for the position of Chairman, National Capital Commission?
2.	Is it a requirement that the Chairman he a bilingual person?
3.	Is it continuing government policy to have 'Ottawa become a truly bilingual area as the National Capital?
4.	Is there a restriction as to residence of the Chairman and, if so, does the present Chairman reside in Ottawa?


James Edgar Walker: 1. There are no formal qualifications required. Appointees are chosen who are thought to have suitable experience and abilities to perform the duties of the position.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) No; (b) No.


GOVERNMENT USE OF PATENTED INVENTIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Pursuant to section 19 of the Patent Act, how many times has the government or its agents used during the past ten years, a patented invention?
2.	If any such patented inventions have been used (a) what did these patents involve (b) what compensation was paid (c) was such compensation set by the Patent Commissioner or by the Exchequer Court?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The Commissioner of Patents has no knowledge of the government or its agents having used any patented invention during the past ten years pursuant to section 19 of the Patent Act.
2. Not applicable.


SASKATCHEWAN POWER CORPORATION-FEDERAL CLAIM
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has the Saskatchewan Power Corporation paid the $262,194 claimed by the Canadian Government?
2.	Has the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority paid the $112,000 claimed by the Canadian Government?

3.	What is the situation regarding these two cases and how were they settled?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. In part.
2.	In part.
3.	Saskatchewan Power Corporation-A compromise settlement satisfactory to both the Federal Government and the Province of Saskatchewan has concluded this matter. British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority-The amount of $112,000 resulted from sales tax assessments on the natural gas operations of the Authority and on its other commercial operations. The tax applicable to the other commercial operations was paid by the Authority, while it was relieved of its liability with respect to natural gas, and its supplier assessed for tax applicable in this area.


NORTH SYDNEY, N.S.-HIGHWAY OVERPASS
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton-: The Sydneys):
1.	Has the Department of Public Works been approached to name the over-pass on the Trans-Canada Highway in the Town of North Sydney, Nova Scotia and, if so, by whom and what names were suggested?
2.	Has a decision been reached on the selection of a name for such over-pass?
3.	If the name is not to be "The J. S. Munro Over-pass", what will it be?
4.	When will the over-pass be officially named?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. Yes. The Royal Canadian Legion, Armstrong Memorial Branch No. 19, has recommended that the Trans-Canada Highway overpass at North Sydney, N.S. be named the J. S. Munro Overpass.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	When the plaque, now on order, is placed.


NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD-LOCATION OF HEADQUARTERS
Mr. McCleave: Does the government intend to move the headquarters of the National Harbours Board to Montreal and, if so, on what date?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to question No. 87 is that the government has no plans to move the headquarters of the National Harbours Board from Ottawa to Montreal.
September 25. 1968


NATIONAL DEFENCE-TARGET STRENGTH THROUGH ATTRITION
Mr. McCleave: How long does the government estimate it would take natural attrition to achieve the target strength of the Department of National Defence as set out at Page 7215 of Hansard of the last Session?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The target strength set out at page 7215 of Hansard dated March 4, 1968, was reached during the month of June 1968.


PURCHASES BY NORTH CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the past three years, what hydro-electric corporations have been bought or nationalized by the North Canada Power Commission?
2.	How much was paid for each of these corporations and by what criteria were they appraised?
3.	Were the shares or assets of these corporations purchased?
4.	Were the former owners paid in cash or issued interest-bearing bonds?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. None.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the total current strength as of January 1, 1968 of the Armed Forces, and of this total, how many are officers and how many are other ranks?
2.	How many officers are currently, as of January 1, 1968 serving in each of the land, sea, and air elements of the Service, and within each element, how many are serving in Canada, in the United States, in Europe, and elsewhere in the world?
3.	How many technical officers as of January 1, 1968 are in each element of the Service and how many in each element are classed as Engineers, have engineering degrees, have science degrees, have degrees other than in science and engineering?
4.	Is engineering recognized as a distinct profession by the Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Are Law, Medicine and Dentistry recognized as distinct professions by the Department of National Defence and the Armed Forces?
6.	For 1966 and 1967 respectively, how many officers in each element of the Service received additional increments of salary over and above their basic rank pay and, of these, how many within their respective elements were Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Pilots and Aircrew other than Pilots?
7.	What was the total cost of this additional increment of salary for these officers in 1966 and 1967 respectively?
8.	How many Pilots as of January 1, 1968 in each element of the Service receiving the added increment of salary were actively engaged in
Questions
flying duties or were employed in purely ground staff and administrative duties?
9.	How many Pilots as of January 1, 1968 in each element of the Service were receiving an additional increment of salary over and above the basic rank pay, and how many of these in each element are actively engaged in flying duties or were employed in purely ground staff and administrative duties?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: As of January 1, 1968: 1. Officers, 18,379; Men, 86,225; Total, 104,604.
2.	RCN CA(R) RCAF TOTAL
Canada	2,960	5,323	8,025	16,308United States	72	71	267	410Europe	99	593	777	1,469Other Countries 6	154	32	192Total	3,137	6,141	9,101	18,3793.	RCN CA(R) RCAF	Technical Officers No. holding Engineering	544	891	1,623degrees No. holding Science	117	186	138degrees No. holding other	14	267	535degrees	27	34	62
Note: The term technical officer covers the following: R.C.N.-officers in marine engineering, naval architecture, armaments, electrical, air engineering, construction engineering. CA(R)-officers serving in R.C.E., R.C. Sigs, R.C.E.M.E., R.C.A.F.-officers serving in photography, telecommunications, armament, aeronautical engineering, mobile support equipment, construction engineering.
4.	Yes. 5.	Yes. 6.	RCN	CA(R)	RCAF	TOTAL1966-67 Doctors	75	135	153	363Lawyers	10	23	22	55Dentists	-	150	-	150Pilots	336	76	2,362	2,774Aircrew other than pilots	16	1,933	1,9491967-68 Doctors	85	158	150	393Lawyers	10	24	19	53Dentists	-	162	-	162Pilots	342	183	2,223	2,748Aircrew other than pilots	15	2,026	2,041
7. 1966-67 $9,828,000; (estimated) 1967-68


$10,200,000. COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
September 25, 1968
Questions
8. As of January 1, 1968:
RCN	CA(R)	RCAFEmployed flying Duties Employed in	222	102	1,427
Ground or Admin Duties	118	82	765
(Employment of a number of pilots in ground positions is necessary in order to meet a requirement for pilot qualifications in certain staff positions and to facilitate individual career development.)
9. Statistics are not now maintained in a manner which would readily provide this information which embraces different types of incremental pay and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to provide an accurate answer.

Mr. MacLean: 1.	What is the number of Canadian Forces Bases in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?
2.	What was the total amount expended in Canadian Forces Bases, defence construction and research in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, in 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
3.	As of January 1, 1968, what was the number of service personnel and the number of civilian personnel located at each of the Canadian Forces Bases in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island?
4.	What is the projected strength of these Bases as of January 1, 1969?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Eight.
2. Data is not maintained in a manner which would permit all defence expenditures in these provinces being readily identifiable, nor is the necessary expert staff available to undertake the large amount of work which
would be required information.	to	gather the	necessary3. As of January	1,	1968: Military	CivilianBase	Personnel	PersonnelCFB Gagetown	3767	795CFB Moncton	140	441CFB Chatham	1167	368CFB Halifax	4122	5351CFB Cornwallis	1081	325CFB Shearwater	2173	466CFB Greenwood	1981	357CFB Summerside	1306	324
4. It is not possible to forecast the strength of these bases as of January 1, 1969.


BIRD POPULATION IN CANADA
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Has it been established that any species of migratory or non-migratory birds native to Canada, have undergone a serious decline in population in the last twenty years in part or all of their range in Canada?
2.	If so, what are the populations most seriously affected?
3.	Have the causes of any population decline been established and, if so, what are they in some of the most serious cases?
4.	Is there any evidence that bird populations are being reduced, because their eggs are being rendered infertile by residues of DDT?
5.	Is there any evidence that any populations of Canadian birds are becoming extinct due to an accumulation of DDT in the natural food chain, as is tile case with the peregrine falcon in the Eastern United States, and with the Bermuda petrel?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. Greater prairie chicken, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, pigeon hawk, Swainson's hawk, bald eagle, gyrfalcon and probably other birds of prey.
2.	The greater prairie chicken has now been virtually extirpated from western Canada. The Eastern race of the peregrine falcon has seriously declined.
3.	Yes. In the case of the prairie chicken, destruction of habitat is the most likely cause. For peregrine falcons, organochlorine insecticides now appear to be the most likely cause.
4.	Yes. It now appears that organochlorine insecticide residues, of which DDT residues are the commonest, are the most probable cause of the hatching failures in the recent peregrine falcon decline.
5.	The decline of the peregrine falcon in the eastern U.S. has apparently also taken place in adjacent parts of Canada, and this decline now appears to be principally due to the accumulation of organochlorine insecticide residues, including DDT, in the natural food chains of these birds.


WINTER CONSTRUCTION OF POST OFFICES
Mr. Lalulippe: Does the government intend to continue the construction of post offices across Canada through the winter, and particularly in the designated regions of areas, in order to assist the unemployed?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minisier of Public Works):: The Department will continue to construct post offices and other buildings in accordance with the requirements for federal
September 25, 1968

accommodation and will continue to follow its present practice of scheduling as much of the work as practicable during the winter months.



STATISTICS RESPECTING QUESTIONS AND MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): Has the President of the Privy Council any statistics on the number of Questions and Motions for Papers asked or proposed in the House of Commons and, if so (a) how many written Ques-
Questions
tions have been put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons, for oral or written answers, during each Session of each Parliament since 1867 (b) how many Starred Questions, for oral answers, have been put on the Order Paper of the House of Commons during each Session of each Parliament since this procedure was first introduced in the Session of 1910-11 (c) how many Motions for the Production of Papers have been passed during each Session of each Parliament since 1867, and (d) how many Orders for Returns were passed during the Session that ended on April 23, 1968, and how many of those Returns were made?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of ihe Privy Council):: 

MOTION FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the notices of motions for the production of papers nos. 1 and 3 are acceptable to the government.
The notices of motions nos. 7 and 9 are acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and the consent of the relevant government authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



ELECTION EXPENSES OF CANDIDATES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for a return showing the total amount of election expenses on behalf of each candidate in the General Election of June 25, 1968, by constituencies, as indicated in the return respecting election expenses submitted on behalf of each candidate, as required under the provisions of Section 63 of The Canada Elections Act; and showing also the names of any candidates, by constituencies, on whose behalf election expense returns have not been submitted.
Motion agreed to.
NIGERIA-RELIEF SUPPLIES BY RED CROSS Motion No. 3-Mr. Brewin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada or any of its representatives and the International Red Cross or the Canadian Red Cross relating to the provision of relief supplies or the transportation of relief supplies to the areas of Nigeria affected by the present hostilities.
Motion agreed to.
DISCONTINUATION OF SALT REBATE Motion No. 7-Mr. Carter:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada or any of its representatives and the Government of the Province of Newfoundland relating to the discontinuation of the Salt rebate accorded to our Atlantic Coast fishermen.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid
Inquiries of the Ministry before this House a copy of the agreement between the Government of Prince Edward Island and the Atlantic Development Board on behalf of the Government of Canada for the construction of highways in Prince Edward Island, and for copies of all correspondence between the two Governments in relation thereto.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question I raised yesterday regarding security, will the Prime Minister inform the house whether any classified documents were removed from government offices by the individual in question, and whether all these have been recovered?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I know of no such documents which have been removed; but if there is further information possessed by the Minister of Justice, he might want to state it now.


Mr. Nielsen:: Come clean, John.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: have nothing to add, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not hear the Minister of Justice.


John Napier Turner: I have
nothing to add to that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Horner:: Justice must be done!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to say that none were removed, or that they do not know of any being removed?


John Napier Turner: Perhaps I might answer that question, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I took the position-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Of secrecy.


John Napier Turner: -that investigations by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the federal forces of this country involving suspected unlawful activity are being continuously carried out, but in the absence of charges being preferred it would not be proper, nor in the public interest, to make public the results of such investigations,

September 25, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry to make them a matter of public record, nor to delve into the facts involved in those investigations.
I believe this is particularly applicable to investigations that may involve national security. The statement I made yesterday, and I repeat it today, is not a statement of new policy; it is a statement of principle and is a reiteration, a repeat of what virtually every minister of justice has said in reply to similar questions, including Hon. Davie Fulton who on April 29, 1959, stated that the government had consistently followed a policy of complete reticence concerning security work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice to violate any security procedures. I asked a question to which I think the house is entitled to an answer, namely whether in fact any documents were removed and, if so, whether they were recovered. Surely this does not involve any breach of security on the part of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition is restating the question he asked before.


An hon. Member:: It has never been
answered.


Mr. Speaker:: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, the rules of the house allow him to ask that question, but there is no obligation on the part of the ministry to answer it at all, or to answer along the lines which the questioner would like.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The matter of security does not enter into the equation when the question is asked: Who was this person? Apparently he was removed, or was gotten out of the civil service because of his misconduct. I ask the Prime Minister whether he will not give the name of this person, because unless he does the opprobrium of suspicion will rest upon every civil servant who has got out since January 1.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, it is conceivable that the release of the name of the gentleman would not be a security risk. I do not want to comment on that. But it would obviously be a

breach of fundamental civil liberties and basic human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the gentlemen of the opposition can imagine that a man who has not been prosecuted by the government, a man against whom we did not decide to proceed, would be rendered a much greater disservice if we were to name him publicly than the hypothetical disservice to thousands of public, civil servants who are under suspicion, according to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: After that specious dissertation on the subject of civil liberties, Mr. Speaker, I ask the right hon. gentleman a simple question. Because of what was found out, was this man told to get out? If so, did not the Prime Minister try him without regard to his civil liberties?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. MacEwan:: Answer that.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the news media have on two recent occasions obtained information which should have been classified as confidential or top secret-and I refer to the Dorlot case and also the case we are discussing at the moment-is the Solicitor General carrying out inquiries into R.C.M.P. security?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General is carrying out inquiries as to what leak, if any, there was and where it came from.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. What class of security documents and information did this man have access to? That is, were they low grade, such as confidential; medium grade, such as secret; or a higher grade, such as top secret.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, surely one of the members of the government is in a position to answer that question-either the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice or the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Nobody had risen. The Chair is allowed to surmise that no minister wants to reply. The Solicitor General may want to say something.
September 25, 1968


Gerald William Baldwin: This is not their day to answer.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in these cases it must be apparent to all that it is extremely difficult to make information public without incurring the risk of compromising measures that are constantly being taken to protect the safety and interest of the country. There are statements to this effect in Hansard-if hon. members want references to this question, of various former prime ministers of this country and ministers of justice over the past 15 or 20 years, on this point.
It must be obvious to all hon. members that in a case of this nature which involves, or may involve security, without jeopardizing the public interest it is not possible to start answering bits and pieces of information of the sort envisaged by the question that has been asked.


Erik Nielsen: Why was he not prosecuted?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister say whether the government or the police know the whereabouts of the individual in question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, my question arises out of some of the answers given today, but in particular out of the answer given by the Minister of Justice yesterday, when he said that the whole matter was referred to the law officers. When the matter was referred to the minister or the ministers of the government by the law officers, did they consider that an offence had been committed? If so, why was a charge not laid; and if it was not, why was this man dismissed on those grounds?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that under the rules and precedents of the house I am entitled to rely on the statement that the opinion of the law officers of the crown was sought; that it was the opinion of the law officers that a prosecution should not be laid; and that this opinion was concurred in by the senior officers of the R.C.M.P.
In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair and would be an unwarranted intrusion into the reasonable privacy of the individual concerned to relate here, behind the absolute privilege and total immunity of parliament, the procedure or substance of the investigation into the suspected criminal conduct of an individual. No charge having been preferred, how would this individual defend himself?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Hees:: Why was a charge not preferred?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he will now answer the question I put yesterday to the Minister of Justice and which the right hon. member for Prince Albert repeated a few moments ago. If no charges have been laid against this individual, bearing in mind the civil liberties to which the Prime Minister referred, on what basis was he either dismissed from the public service or asked to resign?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this opposition wants to protect, apparently, the liberties of an individual. If the man wishes to protect himself he can go to the opposition. He can give his name. He can make public, if he wishes-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. gentlemen are asking us to reveal the name of a man we decided not to prosecute, who left the civil service under circumstances known to him. The opposition is trying to make a martyr out of a man who, in his own judgment, decided it would be better to follow this particular course. He is at liberty to go to hon. gentlemen and have his case stated by them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether hon. members would not judge that we have passed from a question period to a debate. I do not want to limit hon. members but I will allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre a supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is a question of privilege. The Prime Minister just answered a question about naming the individual. I did not ask for the name. I do not want the name to be given. I asked the Prime Minister to answer directly this question: If no charges were laid against the individual, and bearing in mind the principles of civil liberties to which the Prime Minister adheres, why was he dismissed or asked to resign without any kind of trial?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if it helps the opposition, I do not mind stating a matter of general principle here. If the R.C.M.P. find
September 25. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry that a man has done things for which, perhaps, he cannot be prosecuted successfully but they have sufficient knowledge that he has been acting in a way that is detrimental to the public service, it is conceivable that whoever is responsible for the employment of this man will go to him and say: "These are the facts that we have against you. We could make a case; you might win on a technicality, or perhaps you would not. However, you have the choice of resigning, or we can Are you. If you want to appeal under the procedures of the civil service legislation"-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
this the rule of law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course this is the rule of law. We all remember in this house the Spencer case where the opposition decided to make a martyr out of a man who was free-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would take the liberty of reiterating the opinion that I expressed a moment ago and also remind hon. members that we will be in supply tomorrow, when we could easily pursue the debate which has been initiated now. It can be continued at length tomorrow. I see a number of members are anxious to ask other questions which are also important, and I suggest that they should be given the opportunity to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in that connection would the Minister of Justice be here tomorrow?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert will give me his word that he will be here, then I will be here.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture that I feel is quite urgent. My question arises out of the very serious situation that has been created in western Canada owing to the very wet and impossible harvest conditions. Many farmers are going to be up against a serious feed shortage unless they have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his question.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: My question is: Has the minister and his department asked the P.F.A.A. officials to make a survey of the seriousness of the situation?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the serious situation, have any plans been made to assist farmers with regard to drying facilities for wet grain? In order to get feed for livestock many farmers will be forced to take tough or damp grain off the land.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might want to make a statement on motions tomorrow or at some other time.



MOVEMENT OF DAMP AND TOUGH GRAIN TO LAKEHEAD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would he inform the house what action he has taken to facilitate the movement of damp and tough grain from the prairies to the lakehead terminals, and also tell the house when he expects the terminals to be in a position to process such grain? I notice that it must be the day off for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, so could the acting minister answer?


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of Agriculture could answer both questions on motions tomorrow.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the price war now going on between the dairies and the jug milk chains in Toronto and Montreal, and in view of the need to ensure that the interests of consumers will be protected, will the minister seek an early meeting with both the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Quebec Agricultural Marketing Board in order to help resolve this problem?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act is familiar
September 25, 1968

with both situations. Should the facts involved indicate an offence under the Combines Investigation Act, an inquiry will be launched.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell us whether he intends, in the future, to hand over to Quebec the amounts of money earmarked for French speaking countries, so that Quebec might use these funds according to the wishes of the Quebec government, as it was suggested this morning by the premier of that province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question of the hon. member is much too general to be put at this time.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which I hope is not too general. Can the minister now break the blockade of silence surrounding movements of relief supplies to Nigeria and Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very general question.


Mr. Fairweather:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister had an opportunity to consider the implications of the question I asked him yesterday about the statement of the Nigerian military commander that no relief supplies would be allowed to pass through occupied territories.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have taken the opportunity of inquiring into the circumstances under which the statement was made. It was made a month ago, I think, by a divisional commander of the Nigerian army. The Nigerian government has stated that it intends to work with the International Red Cross for the relief of hunger in all parts of Nigeria and, in fact, is moving supplies behind the advancing armies.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which has to do with Canada's desire to have the matter of Biafran suffering considered by the United Nations General Assembly. I ask the minister, since our delegation missed its opportunity for unilaterally placing this item on the agenda of the United Nations, is our delegation now seeking the support of a majority of the members of the United Nations so that this item may be added to the provisional agenda?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman no doubt will have read my letter to U Thant asking for his advice on how best to advance this humanitarian work. We have also been working in the meantime with the delegations of other countries. We are still seeking an opportunity to put forward a resolution that will deal with this humanitarian question, and not be lost in a sterile debate about the future of Nigeria.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to infer from that answer that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is satisfied with the amount of relief supplies getting through to the people of Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, I am very dissatisfied, and I hope the house will join in supporting not only the voluntary efforts made in this country but the efforts of all countries around the world to open the way for getting supplies to those needy people.


An hon. Member:: Paul Martin could have done the job.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs how he reconciles the answer he has just given with the answer he gave earlier to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) in which he said that the Nigerian authorities apparently were moving supplies forward in a satisfactory way.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
September 25. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
Can he tell us whether he intends to invite the President oi the French Republic to Ottawa next year when he comes to visit Quebec?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: What a good idea, Mr. Speaker.


CZECHOSLOVAKIA-AGGRAVATION OF SITUATION BY INCREASE IN MILITARY FORCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the unfortunate experience the people of Czechoslovakia are still going through, is the hon. gentleman giving consideration to the view that by maintaining or increasing our military forces in Europe we might be worsening the situation of the Czechoslovak people by giving the Soviet union an excuse for maintaining troops there?


Mr. Speaker:: The question as asked
appears to be argumentative.


LOTTERIES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sfe-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
I should like to know if the Prime Minister, in the course of his visit to Mayor Drapeau during the last Liberal convention-incidentally, the day before the municipal lottery was officially announced-was invited to give his opinion with regard to the legal aspect of mayor Drapeau's lottery?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think that the question is in order. At any rate, if in the opinion of the hon. member there is some urgency, he may give notice for debate later on at the time of adjournment.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, in view of the ruling given by the Quebec Appeal Court on that matter, I should like to know if the opinion of the Prime Minister coincided with the decision of Mayor Drapeau in that respect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had indeed heard the question, but I do not think that its degree of urgency warrants an immediate answer.



MONTREAL-WITHDRAWAL OF MAILING PRIVILEGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: have a question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Has he cut off all mailing privileges for the city of Montreal, since the law requires that those privileges be curtailed in cases involving lotteries. If they have not been cut off, will he cut off those privileges?


An hon. Member:: A good question..


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt about the urgency of the question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member feels there is urgency, perhaps he wishes to come back at the time of adjournment, with the minister.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Since a constituent of mine, a parish priest, had all mailing privileges suspended as the result of sending a few, crummy half dollar lottery tickets through the mail for a good cause, can he advise the house why the mailing privileges of the city of Montreal will not be suspended?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is along the same lines as some others which have been asked. Since there is general interest in the matter perhaps the minister might answer.


Mr. Kierans:: I think we shall give the mayor of Montreal a few days to make the appeal, and after that I hope the new omnibus bill will be passed which might declare lotteries legal.


John George Diefenbaker: So that's the plan. Did you have permission to speak?


Douglas Scott Harkness: On what basis does the Postmaster General justify going completely against the law in this regard?


An hon. Member:: Presumption of innocence.


Eric William Kierans: I think everybody knows this is under appeal, Mr. Speaker.
September 25, 1968


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I tried to reach the Postmaster General with a supplementary question earlier, Mr. Speaker. How can the hon. gentleman tell this house that the question of the use of the mails is under appeal, when the appeal is as to the legality of a lottery? When the clergyman formerly referred to was denied the use of the mails the service to him was suspended. There is no appeal being made in the courts, to my knowledge, concerning the use of the mails.



HOUSING


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, who I see is with us in the house today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yesterday I directed a question intended for the Minister of Transport to the acting minister, who said he would take notice of it. Is the minister in a position to answer that question today?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, could my hon. friend say which question that is. Several are before me.


An hon. Member:: Welcome back, Paul.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: My question dealt with the matter of whether provincial and municipal officials have been invited to testify before the task force on housing which the minister is heading, and a supplementary question dealt with complaints from city of Toronto officials that they had inadequate notice to prepare their briefs. I expect the minister will have seen my question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have advised all provincial ministers responsible of our visits across the country. We have also written to the mayors and reeves of Canada to advise them of our studies and to invite their participation. I regret that the notice given for the preparation of briefs was perhaps short and inadequate. Notice was short because of the urgency we attach to this problem and because of our determination, hopefully, to come up with some report by the year's end. We have indicated to the city
Inquiries of the Ministry of Toronto, for example, that if they have a brief ready for us before the inquiry next week end we shall be glad to receive it and to discuss with them this urgent problem facing all Canadians.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us whether the federal commission on housing and urban development has scheduled meetings to take place in western Quebec? I know that such meetings have taken place-


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



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: My
question is directed to the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Canadian School Trustees' recent resolution calling for more uniform education standards across Canada, will the minister give consideration to establishing a national office of education to provide leadership for greater interprovincial agreement on grade and subject standards for Canadian schools?


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



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is for the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. We have heard quite a bit about civil rights today and I wonder whether the minister is considering including in the amendments to the Criminal Code a measure to control wire tapping?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am awaiting the formal brief of the Canadian Bar Association to be sent to Ottawa, in accordance with their resolution passed in Vancouver. I am also awaiting the report of the Royal Commission on Security.
September 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Once I receive these documents I hope to bring it at an early date a bill having to do with wire tapping, but I doubt that it will be included in the omnibus bill.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: My question Is for the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker. Considering the statement the minister made to a three nation chemical conference in Montreal this week that Canada must more than triple its expenditures on research, can he advise the house if the government intends to reduce or otherwise curtail any more scientific undertakings?


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member does not agree that the answer to this type of very general question should be conveyed to the house by way of a statement on motions.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: My question is for the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the president of the National Research Council that Canadian railways are likely to lose much Europe to Asia traffic to a United States land bridge, what specific plans can the minister announce which will enable the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. to meet the challenge of United States container trains?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question which, in my view, ought to be answered by a statement made on motions.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erik Nielsen: My question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. Since it was announced in the speech from the throne that the government intends to introduce a measure respecting the Yukon Quartz Mining Act, and since this legislation 

is of great complexity and length, will the minister consider putting this matter on the order paper soon and making the bill available to hon. members, so that it can be studied?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when we will be able to proceed, but I think we will be able to table the bill referred to by the hon. member for Yukon two or three weeks from now.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)



SPECIAL COMMITTEE-PROCEDURES RESPECTING INSTRUMENTS IN VIRTUE OF STATUTES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, September 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):
That a special committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: When the house rose last night, Mr. Speaker, I was dealing with this question of the appointment of a committee to examine procedures for the review of statutory instruments. At that time, I made reference to the fact that there has been a great development not only in Canada but in other countries which have given the administration the power to make delegated legislation.
The background or justification for this practice has probably never been better stated than by the Donoughmore committee in 1932-command paper 4060-and I should like to take the liberty of referring to one passage from this committee's report. It summarizes the need for delegation under four heads:
1.	Pressure upon parliamentary time is great.
2.	The subject matter of modem legislation is very often of a technical nature.
3.	If large and complex schemes of reform are to be given technical shape, it is difficult to work out the administrative machinery in time to insert in the bill all the provisions required; it is impossible to foresee all the contingencies and local conditions for which provision must eventually be made.
4.	The practice, further, is valuable because it provides for a power of constant adaptation to unknown future conditions without the necessity of amending legislation.
September 25, 1968

All these reasons may be valid, but this does not lessen the need for parliamentary scrutiny of subordinate legislation after it has been enacted and when it is in operation. I hope that the special committee which is proposed will want to ask various questions. I hope, for example, it will want to ask whether we are passing bills which authorize the minister or the council to exercise a legislative authority fully as wide as that of parliament itself. I hope it will want to ask whether the Canadian practice of having statutory instruments made chiefly by order in council rather than by ministerial regulation gives adequate ground for thinking that our instruments are less dangerous than those made, for example, in the United Kingdom. I hope the committee will want to ask whether this house ought to employ an officer to review statutory instruments in some such way as the Auditor General reviews expenditures made pursuant to parliamentary appropriation. Finally, I hope it will want to ask whether this house should set up a standing committee to scrutinize the orders and whether we should establish procedures by which both individual members and the committee could seek to have orders altered or revoked.


Gerald William Baldwin: The
minister has put the matter to us in rather cold, legalistic terms. I think there is far more to this than he has indicated. I recall returning to Canada at the end of the last war. Before going to my home to resume my occupation I spent some time in Edmonton trying to refresh my memory and catch up with some of the laws which had been passed. I remember going into the court house library in Edmonton and being shown by the librarian a set of all the regulations and orders in council which had been passed during the years I had been absent. There they stood- volume after volume, shelf upon shelf and row upon row. And all these documents, intimately and deeply, had the power to impair the rights, privileges and personal position of the ordinary men and women of this country.
Later on, I recall presiding in this house over a committee established to examine the possibility of dealing with the War Measures Act. We were asked to consider what regulations might be passed and what else could be done to preserve some of the terms of that legislation. It was proposed in the course of one of these meetings that some of the regulations in connection with certain areas of discussion should be brought before the committee in order that we might form an opin-
Consideration of Procedural Changes ion before making a recommendation to this house. Mr. Speaker, we were told that if this were done so many documents would be brought that there would be no room for the committee itself to sit, so numerous were those regulations.
This is a very serious and controversial subject involving an area in which we in Canada have done nothing so far. In this respect, we are years behind other countries which have faced this problem, met the challenge and made some progress in dealing with it. My approach to this question differs from that taken by the minister. I listened to his speech yesterday and I have since reread what he said. The terms of reference contained in this resolution are, I suggest, fairly wide.
That a special committee of twelve members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada.
I hold that up and compare it with what the minister said yesterday when he was giving his views as to what this committee might do, the areas into which it might go, and the areas which it should not consider. As recorded at page 438 of yesterday's Hansard he said:
One of the means of controlling administrative action to prevent interference with the rights of the individual is of course by providing legal rights of recourse, either by appeal to the regular court system or by means of prerogative writs-
I accept the first part of this. I think all of us must accept the fact that if powers have been given by a statute to any group or to any individual, whether it be the governor in council, a minister, or a person, to act, and if in addition to that right there is also given, the right to the subject who may be affected to have recourse to the courts by a method of appeal set out in the statute, and the terms of which are perfectly plain, then quite obviously this parliament should not be and must not be concerned with an issue of this kind.
But I reject out of hand the theory that because prerogative writs may be applied where natural justice is denied this means that these writs will always be applied or that we shall be free to look at these areas. These are the things this committee should be examining.
As recorded at the top of page 439 of yesterday's Hansard the minister went on to say:
This resolution and the committee to be set up will not deal with that subject matter. One of my responsibilities, as President of the Privy Council, will be to suggest further procedures-
472	COMMONS
Consideration of Procedural Changes
I think this is an issue which will run collateral to the inquiries by this house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: But it is not an
issue for this committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: I understand that, but I do not think there should be any inhibition of this committee about contemplating this problem or the proposal of remedies merely by saying that prerogative writs do apply, or merely to say the minister has, in the terms of reference he might receive from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the right and the duty of considering other related aspects of this problem. I think there should be a full and complete inquiry.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I do not think there is any restriction in my words, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: Good; I am glad we got that settled, Mr. Speaker. There should be the widest possible terms of reference and the widest possible consideration. I do not think there is any question about that.
Too many people have suffered injustices and inequities with no recourse as a result of delegated legislation. I recognize, all of us must recognize, that in this modern day the need to deal with the complexities of a social and economic life prohibit incorporating into a statute all of the areas of discussion, all of the proposals, all of the contingencies which might arise from time to time. We have to provide flexibility or we simply could not prepare, complete and pass a statute to meet the situation with which we are dealing. So, we have to provide that certain powers be delegated to boards, to tribunals, to corporations or to individuals, or as is most usually the case, to the governor in council.
I accept that, but in addition to any right of appeal, in areas which are not covered by appeals to the courts there has to be given to this house and to this parliament a means of making good the lack which has existed far too long of dealing with injustices and inequities which apply and which flow from these delegated legislative powers. This is what I think our committee will deal with, with the widest possible opportunity and the widest possible scope.
It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that we will decide that an ombudsman should work hand in hand with this committee. I have talked to those who occupy, and who have occupied, this position in other countries. One of the

DEBATES	September 25, 1968
difficulties which they have found is the fact that too often they operate in a vacuum. There is no means, outside of the normal realm of publicity, by which they can bring specific complaints to the legislative body in order to secure a measure of examination and investigation and a declaration by, for example, a parliamentary committee.
In addition to that, I would like to think that the committee would recommend a procedure whereby under certain conditions-and I think there will have to be criteria, there will have to be a yardstick-it will be possible to bring into this house, for discussion and consideration, a delegated authority where there has been a case of abuse; where the result of applying the authority which has been given has been to bring about something not probably contemplated or which causes injustice.
I am not suggesting that in doing this we would have to take up government time. The practice which prevails in the United Kingdom is that, by means of petition, it is possible to bring up a matter for discussion in the house, coupled with the right to move for the annulment of the offending instrument. Then, it might well be that when we come to consider this issue we will propose that with regard to certain statutes the right to pass orders in council, which is given by those statutes, should be subject to the inhibition that the orders in council should be brought back to parliament, if parliament is then sitting and, if not sitting, then within a reasonable time after parliament resumes. We might propose that these orders in council should be laid upon the table and, unless approved by this house, they would expire within a limited time.
I am not suggesting that this can be done or should be done in all statutes, but there is a strong case to be made that in certain instances the right to pass orders in council, the right to pass regulations, the right to make orders involves an area so crucial, critical and important to the liberty of the subject, that these orders in council should not be allowed to continue beyond a definite time until considered and approved by this house.
These, Mr. Speaker, are some of the areas I think we should traverse and cover. I think this is a tremendously important committee and I have great hopes that from it will flow some very beneficial results.
When the minister was speaking yesterday, I was searching for a little phrase which I
September 25, 1968

recalled from before, and I found it last night. It comes from the immortal Shakespeare. Possibly the minister will remember it.
But man, proud man,
Drest in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he's most assured,
His glassy essence, like an angry ape,
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven As make the angels weep.
I refer that to the minister. He might pass it on to his colleagues and to the Prime Minister. I think it is a very useful thing to bear in mind by those who occupy temporarily the seats of the mighty.
I think this applies to civil servants and others who are given this delegated authority; good men, honest, conscientious men, but entrusted with this power they have the opportunity to cover up mistakes, to hide some inequity and injustice, to sweep their problems under the carpet. They know that at the present time there can be no right of review because if the matter is brought on to the floor of this house it is brought in such a way that it cannot be dealt with and disposed of effectively.
I think that most of those who have been given this power exercise it intelligently, honestly and equitably. However, I suggest that if it were known this power of review existed, if it were known that there would in fact be a committee of this house with the right to make the sort of inquiry I have envisaged, that would have a most salutory effect upon those who have been given this power and in their dealings with the common people, with the ordinary man, they would exercise a degree of vigilance and care which I am afraid in many instances today they do not do.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I think this is a particularly good time to bring this up. We hear talk about the just society. We heard the Prime Minister this afternoon make a unilateral declaration concerning the government's proposal with regard to the question period. As I have indicated before, I believe this is just another example of the very dangerous course which the Prime Minister and his colleagues seem determined to pursue. When I heard during the election campaign about a just society I thought it was about time the people of Canada grabbed their hats and headed for the storm cellars. The great society, the new deal, the old deal, the middle age deal, all involve a proliferation of boards, tribunals, orders,
Consideration of Procedural Changes regulations, directions and directives. Governments which come into power on an election platform based on issues of this kind operate like a yo yo; there is a lot of motion but no progress.
The statute books are filled with statutes giving rights, powers and regulatory authority to others which entitle them to deal with the fortunes and lives of the people of Canada. I venture to say, in the course of the next four years, if the people of Canada are so unfortunate as to have this government inflicted upon them for that length of time this is what we will find in the statutes which this government passes. We have the poor bewildered people of this country, the ordinary man. I believe it was Lincoln who said that God must have loved the ordinary man because he made so many of them. The ordinary man, in the general course of events today, is overpowered and overshadowed by bigness-big industry, large labour unions and big government. I suggest we will see more of this from now on.
It may well be that the better quality of life about which we hear a great deal may be improved by the passage of statutes giving government officials and the governor in council power to pass regulations, but I do not think so. I think it is about time we recognized that we have imposed upon the people of this country a bureaucratic jungle. I have no hope that we will be able to hack it down. I do hope, however, that through measures of this kind it will be possible for us at least to clear out a little space where the ordinary man can stand tall and straight again, see the blue sky, through recourse to the remedies which we hope will flow from the recommendations of a committee of this kind. We hope that he will be given the opportunity by an appeal from some of these measures to once again become an individual.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite copy the lyrical turn of phrase we have heard from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin); but I have a few observations which I should like to make on this motion. We, in this party, are happy to give this motion our enthusiastic support. All members are aware of the enormous growth of delegated legislation. It is a phenomenon in this day of modern democracies. With the growing demand for legislative action, with the inevitable complexity of such legislation and the need for flexibility it is quite impossible for parliament to deal directly with the total field of legislation. Hence,
September 25, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes the practice of the wide delegation of legislative powers to the cabinet and other so-called subordinate bodies.
It is quite useless to bemoan this tendency, although for the past 50 years legal pundits headed by Lord Hewart, in the "New Despotism", have made it a subject for their eloquence. Although it is quite useless to bid the flood turn back, we must establish some effective review of delegated legislation if the whole democratic process of parliament is to be meaningful and not simply an empty and mocking phrase. Perhaps I might cite an example. Parliament has passed the Immigration Act which in theory lays down an immigration policy for Canada. In fact, from some knowledge, I would venture the opinion that 95 per cent of our immigration cases are dealt with by means of regulations passed by orders in council. The essential immigration policy of this country has not been subject to effective review by this house.
I, personally, am pleased that the committee, by the terms of the motion, is directed primarily to a review of action by this house in connection with subordinate legislation. There are, as members have pointed out, other forms of review such as judicial review and administrative review. Other suggestions have been made, such as the appointment of officials like ombudsmen. All of these are helpful and may even be essential. I suggest, however, that it is this house of elected members which is and should be primarily both the maker of laws affecting the people of this country and the protector of the people of this country against encroachment by the executive and its servants. Any effective steps we can take to make the supremacy of parliament more real and effective should be taken. This is essential if we are to have a fuller and more genuine democracy. We assume that the committee will be appointed, and we hope it will find useful ways for parliament to review delegated legislation. We also hope when the report of this committee is made that it will be referred promptly by the government to the house for action.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few brief remarks on that notice of motion to set up a committee to consider procedural changes. As a new member who has had however the opportunity and the advantage to attend innumerable

sittings of the house-as a visitor and secretary to the leader of the Ralliement creditiste for three years.-I have seen with my own eyes the work done in this historic chamber and its quality.
Mr. Speaker, the remarks I want to make at this stage are more of a general nature and do not deal, except occasionally, with any standing order; instead they will urge the members of that committee to pay particular attention to the spirit in which that committee should sit, in my opinion.
Mr. Speaker, the recent statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that the question period would be changed according as ministers are present or absent is, in my opinion, a breach of the fundamental parliamentary rule, in view of the setting up of this committee. I hope that the matter will be referred to that committee in due course and that report will be made to this house.
Mr. Speaker, in this parliament, we have a very important part to play, and to do so, every member should be able to exercise his fundamental rights as representative and spokesman of the people, according to the standing orders. I think that every member must make every effort so that order is maintained in the house, and a higher standard is given to this debate.
Mr. Speaker, moreover, it is my belief that Canadians truly want to be present in this house through their members whom they elected by a majority vote.
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians are present here in our discussions through the representatives they have elected, as I was saying a moment ago. All the people of Canada have a right to demand representation in the debates of the people's chamber, for it is indeed their chamber, and I feel sad about the attendance to various degrees here. I realize that members are involved on all sides in a great number of problems but the fact remains, I think, that some recommendations should be made and studied by this committee in order to assist the members so that they may fulfil their legislative and administrative roles more adequately.
As a new member and without hurting anybody's feelings, I will simply say-and I repeat it-that participation in the debates of this house has been lacking. Several members and ministers are absent. People want us to say aloud in this parliament what they are
September 25, 1968

thinking at home. I believe this governing principle should be continuously and permanently observed by each of us.
Secondly, I would like to say that I am disappointed with the many members not participating in our debates. I have, on several occasions, witnessed this situation as I have in the past three years, been listening to the debates from the gallery. Is our participation, Mr. Speaker, a matter of saving face or does it consist in contributing something to the debates? It will be the responsibility of the committee to examine this point thoroughly and ask questions.
My third comment is in connection with the quality of our discussions in this house and about the manner of our interjections. I do not claim to be better than the other members in this respect. It is a conversation between deaf persons and it has become worse since the Prime Minister has muzzled his ministers, thus preventing them from cooperating with other members.
I would therefore appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that those three comments be taken into consideration, incomplete as they may be, at the meetings of this committee, so as to improve the rules of this house and its performance.
I hope that the amendments which will be passed will improve the standard debates, encourage a thorough dialogue and an exchange of views among all parties of this house in short, that they will constantly promote a fuller co-operation from each of us.
I believe that our democracy will be lively if every member of this house is also lively. We must help the new members to integrate in their new parliamentary background and to get acquainted with the rules of the house with a view to increasing efficiency in their work.
I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker-and I hope I abide by the rules by so doing-that lessons on parliamentary procedures be given by you, since you are an expert in this field and that I understand you teach at the University of Ottawa. Otherwise, some other capable person could give them. This would familiarize new members with the rules of the house and help them to take a more active and intelligent part in the debates.
I feel certain that many old hands in parliamentary matters would also benefit from taking those courses. An effort must be made to help the member of parliament, to revalorize his role. That is the spirit in which amendments should be made, Mr. Speaker, in

Consideration of Procedural Changes order to turn the member of parliament into a real legislator and a competent administrator.
If we are to review and modernize our rules, we should also try to give back to the members their true role, that of full participants instead of spectators who seem to wait for the Messiah.
If our standing orders, which no longer answer our present needs, are to be changed, these changes should be made in a certain spirit and according to a basic principle: rethinking and redefining the role of the member of parliament and parliament itself, and establishing the proper priorities. However, it must not be forgotten that we are here to express what the people are thinking.
I duly appreciated the most timely observations made last night by the right hon. member for Prince-Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), namely that the people must be informed of what is said and done in this historic and unique house.
In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I find it unacceptable that the Hansard should not be sent, at Her Majesty's expense, to any person requesting it. I am convinced that the hon. member for Prince-Albert will agree that Her Majesty would be pleased to allow Canadian citizens, eager to be informed, to receive this report, where the facts are not sifted out by the financiers, who would distort them, in order to keep the people in the dark and so to lead public opinion where they would like it to go.
Mr. Speaker, considering that there are about 4,000 subscribers to the Hansard, I am appalled to think that such a service is not being provided; this is one of the very serious reasons why people take no interest in the work of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to point out that the procedure should respect the role of the member, that of a representative and a spokesman. A member is a spokesman. Because of that, he must know what his constituents think. To know what they think, each member should, in my humble opinion, set up a permanent consultation system within his riding each time an important bill is put before the house.
For instance, take the famous omnibus bill which will be brought in shortly. At that time, it would certainly be opportune, in my humble opinion, or each member to hold some sort of very honest referendum in his riding, in order for him to know the opinion
September 25, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes of the people, and to allow a free vote to be taken, not a party vote as used to be the case with the old parties.
In short, it is a matter of bringing the people to really participate in the administration of the country. No matter what our debates are, no matter what procedure we adopt, if the Canadian people do not participate directly or indirectly in our debates, if they do not read them, we are wasting our time.
Consultation could be achieved through the mailing of circulars, letters, or through other means, in order to bring out the idea that a member is really a spokesman.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to pursue my remarks further, save for the following conclusions. I am particularly pleased that the parliament has an air of youth about it, and that it has several young members.
I am 25 years old and I am happy to sit in this parliament; a 22-year old member of the New Democratic Party, sits here also I believe. I want to congratulate him on his election and offer him my close co-operation, with a view to showing the old campaigners that young parliamentarians can do as well as their elders, provided the latter will co-operate.
Obviously, the young need the experience of the old and that is why, Mr. Speaker, I should like to appeal, at this point, to the old timers of parliament, and ask them to cooperate with us, to help us integrate. If one day they begin to feel a bit tired, we shall be here to help them. Some people have ulcers; we are in good health. Our elders have clever heads; we may have good ideas, but we lack experience.
If all those things are put together, Mr. Speaker, I think some good work can be done. But if each party refuses to come down from its ivory tower, it is useless to think that the House of Commons can engage in a lively, human and dynamic dialogue. It will be useless, because we will waste our time and end up in the best dialogue of the deaf one has ever seen.
The hon. member for Prince Albert said last night that if the debates were put on film, the end result might not be a horror movie, I say that it might be a comedy, Mr. Speaker, if things remained as they are right now.
Parliament must be dynamic to catch the interest of dynamic people. It must be serious if it wants to get the attention and the interest of serious people. It must be young to

attract even more young people. It must be efficient so that competent people from every sphere will take interest in it.
I believe in democracy as long as it is respected and lived. I want to blame this government for the way it scorns democracy by refusing to answer the questions put by the opposition, and not behaving according to a true democratic spirit. I am thinking of what took place this afternoon, with the question period confined to Wednesday and the ministers allowed to be absent.
We must have a responsible government, responsible to the opposition and to the people, because we all owe an accounting to the people for our presence here. We must give an accounting to the people for the business we have to discharge here.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding my remarks, I say: Give us all the standing orders and procedure that you want, if a positive, dynamic, vigourous, human legislative program, fit to tackle the true problems, is not presented to us, these standing orders and procedure will be meaningless and ineffective.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution before the house which states that a special committee of 12 members, to be named at a later date, be appointed to consider and, from time to time, to report on procedures for the review by this house of instruments made in virtue of any statute of the parliament of Canada.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), for initiating and championing the move to have this resolution placed before the house, because I consider that any effort made to regain the supremacy of parliament is a move in the right direction. I have been aware of the power of the present government of Canada, and this has worried me and many members of the house because sometimes governments which have more authority than parliament might not be as sympathetic as the democratic process would require.
I think the resolution, as stated, epitomizes the concern that in some cases instruments of government may be given unlimited power, thereby taking away some of the authority and powers which should rest with parliament.
My major reason for speaking on this resolution arises out of my particular concern as a
September 25, 1968

result of recent action taken by an instrument of government in connection with a province of Canada which I will name shortly. In trying to bring this point to the attention of parliament, permit me to quote from the legislation which cemented the union between Canada and Newfoundland in 1949. In that year when Newfoundland entered confederation, one of the terms of union agreed on by the Canadian government and Newfoundland was term 31 (a) which stated the following:
At the date of union, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Canada will take over the following services and will, as from the date of union, relieve the province of Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in respect of every service taken over, namely,... (a) the Newfoundland railway-
On April 1, 1949, by order in council the governor general in council entrusted to the Canadian National Railways the operation and management of the Newfoundland railway. The operative words of that order in council as it relates to the case are:
-Therefore, His Excellency the governor general in council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, is pleased to order that, effective April 1, 1949, the Newfoundland railway, including rights-of-way, wharves, dry docks and other real property, rolling stock, equipment, ships and other personal property ... the title to which is vested in His Majesty, be and they are hereby entrusted in respect of management and operation thereof to the company on the terms in the Canadian National Railways' Act expressly specified, namely, that such management and operation shall continue during the pleasure of the governor in council-
As all hon. members are aware, the terms of union and subsequent arrangements were agreed upon by the two governments, namely the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada, both of which also agreed that the arrangement would remain in existence during the pleasure of the governor in council.
In 1966, legislation was brought in creating what is now known as the Canadian Transport Commission, and the statutes of Canada 1966-67 outline the agreements made or the legislation governing the actions and operation of the said Canadian Transport Commission. During the summer of the present year, the Canadian Transport Commission, under the chairmanship of Hon. John W. Pick-ersgill, showed exactly what powers this particular instrument of government had and also how it intended to use this power. In the summer of this year, the commission made the following decision with regard to the request of the C.N.R. to abandon the rail passenger service in Newfoundland. As we all
477
Consideration of Procedural Changes know, last year the C.N.R. placed an argument before the Canadian Transport Commission that the rail passenger service serving the whole of Newfoundland be abolished.
Last summer, the commission, which is an instrument of the government and which has the power to make a decision in this respect, stated the following:
The Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission hereby orders:
This is a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission with regard to the C.N.R. application.
-shall, on April 15, 1969, discontinue passenger train service between St. John's and Port aux Basques, in the province of Newfoundland.
I ask my colleagues and all members of this house: Where was there reference in this decision to the government of Canada? I ask again-while indicating my support for this resolution which points out the great need for a review of the powers and procedures of the various instruments created by statute-were the government of Canada, the parliament of Canada, the government of Newfoundland, the minister in question or the governor in council, all duly elected bodies, consulted in the making of this decision? There is absolutely no reference in this particular document to any authority other than the Canadian Transport Commission and its president. I say, further, that although I am quite aware of the fact, as was indicated recently by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in a statement to the house, that an appeal is in order-and we hope an appeal will be presented-I nevertheless state here and now that this kind of action should never be allowed to transpire, regardless of the fact that there is an appeal pending.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I asked a question in the house recently. My question to the Minister of Transport asked why the Canadian Transport Commission made the decision to abandon the rail passenger service. The reply given by the minister indicated that, because of technological changes which are taking place in our society, because of the improved use of aeroplanes, and because of the increasing cost of rail passenger services, the Canadian Transport Commission made the decision to abandon the rail passenger service in the island of Newfoundland.
I asked, further, at what time the government of Canada or the minister responsible would make a decision as to the abandonment
September 25, 1968

Consideration of Procedural Changes of all rail passenger services across Canada. As the house is quite aware, this question was ruled as argumentative and no reply was received from the minister. I realize now why it was argumentative. I should have asked the question of the president of the Canadian Transport Commission, Mr. Pickersgill, rather than the minister. This was quite obvious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: What I am trying to say in support of this resolution is that this kind of action by one of the creatures, one of the instruments of government, can lead to the abolition of rights of not only individuals but a whole population. If the government of Canada, this parliament, is going to establish and retain creatures which have practically omnipotent power, I consider this to be a very serious situation.
I am speaking on this issue and making reference to this particular case because I feel it is not only a provincial matter. I like to think it is very much a national issue. I believe that if the president of the Canadian Transport Commission, and the Canadian Transport Commission itself, can without due regard to parliament, without presenting its case to the government of Canada, to the duly elected representatives of our country, make decisions of this nature, why cannot they make a decision to abolish the whole C.N. passenger service across Canada?
This is a matter of great concern to the people across the whole dominion, because I fear the power of the Canadian Transport Commission. This is the specific reason I so strongly support this resolution and ask that the government make every effort to give to such a committee the widest possible terms of reference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), has already pointed out, we very enthusiastically welcome this motion. I hope we do not have cause to say about this motion, after it passes, what we had to say today about a motion we passed yesterday. At any rate, we feel very strongly that there is need to study the whole question of how parliament can review the legislation that is passed by bodies to which we delegate the authority to pass such legislation.
As is already clear from the debate that has taken place, various bodies are given this authority by parliament. We just had a reference

to the Canadian Transport Commission. My colleague from Greenwood referred to what happens in the field of immigration. Indeed, there are a great many boards and commissions that are given what amounts to legislative authority by acts of parliament.
I rise to speak in particular of a very important body which gets this kind of authority from parliament and which I think all too often abuses it. I refer to the cabinet itself. After all, that august body consisting of the ministers of the Crown does have the right to pass orders in council in terms laid down for them in various statutes of parliament. However, it is a very clear principle that the cabinet does not have the authority to legislate beyond the terms given to it by an act of parliament.
I want to refer to one particular case which I think demonstrates the need for this kind of review. I have made a brief reference to it already by asking a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). My question was put to him on September 17, as recorded in Hansard at page 102, when I asked him about an order in council which was passed in April, based on the Financial Administration Act.
I asked him in particular if he would compare the passing of that order in council with one that was passed by the Diefenbaker government in June, 1962. I asked, to be even more specific, whether the Department of Justice had checked all aspects of this matter before giving approval to the passing of this order in council. It struck me as rather strange that when I asked about this order in council the Minister of Justice did not seem to know which one I was talking about. When he did come back with the answer a few days later, namely yesterday, he managed to give me the good old one word answer. His one word answer to my question was simply "Yes". In other words, all I have been told by the Minister of Justice is that all aspects of this matter were considered by the Department of Justice before approval was given to this order in council.
To make my point, a brief bit of history has to be given, but it is history well known to many members who are still in this House of Commons. In June, 1962, a week after the election on June 18 of that year, the government of that day passed an order in council which had the effect of raising import duties. This is something that only parliament can do; we thought everyone knew that. But the
September 25, 1968

then government ol Canada found an ingenious way by which it could raise import duties. It did it by order in council. It used the Customs Tariff to raise various categories of duties by a rather large amount, and then reduced them to the figure it wanted by applying the remission privileges contained in section 22 of the Financial Administration Act. It was ingenious, but there is no doubt in my mind that it was wrong, that it was an abuse of the power to pass legislation by order in council.
I think it is a statement of fact that I was the one who discovered it and first started asking questions about it in the House of Commons. But for the purposes of what I want to say now, the more important fact is that it was the Liberals of that day who came in for the kill. It was Hon. Paul Martin, who sat in the front bench on this side of the house, and the present Minister of Justice who sat in the back bench on this side of the house, who really went to war, who really manned the barricades, who really called for the downfall of the Conservative government because it had exercised the privilege of passing legislation by order in council, which it was the right of parliament only to do.
The government of that day, of course, told us that the Department of Justice had found that this order in council was perfectly valid, that it was properly drawn and quite legal. But a few months later, after an election had taken place, we had a change of government. In the meantime, some people were taking the government to court over this order in council because, after all, duties had been raised by a substantial amount.
So the new Liberal government got from the same Department of Justice the opposite ruling, a ruling quite contrary to the ruling that had been given to the Conservative government. The ruling then was that the order in council of June, 1962, was invalid and that there had better be legislation to validate it.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I recite that bit of history, Mr. Speaker, not to open old wounds but to place it before the house to enable us to see what is now happening. Let me repeat that in 1962 and 1963 this was a terrible abuse of the power of order in council. The Liberal government now comes along and uses the same order in council technique, the same statute-the same Financial Administration Act, section 22-to reduce duties. The order in council reads, in part, to the effect the duties will be the
29180-31J
Request {or Second Trans-Canada Route amount they would have been if parliament had passed the resolutions that were placed on the order paper on June 1 and November 6, 1967. The order in council, in its very language, admits that the government is doing by executive action what it had earlier thought had to be done by an act of parliament.
I see that you are on the edge of your chair, Mr. Speaker, and that it is after five o'clock, so I will continue my remarks when we return to this motion.


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



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of constructing a second Trans-Canada Highway that would link Labrador with the rest of Canada and thus develop the greatest remaining storehouse of natural wealth in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the concept of a second trans-Canada highway is of such magnitude and will involve the spending of such a colossal sum of money that it probably sounds presumptuous, or some such word as that, when advanced by a new member of parliament. It is very possible that Joey Smallwood more than any other individual in Canada would do more justice to the introduction of such a motion. As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, he can roll a couple of billion dollars-he would call it $2,000 million-off his tongue without batting an eyelash. I doubt whether he would have any conception of just how much money it is, but he would certainly have no difficulty in talking about it.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the money involved. I would not know what I was talking about anyway; any mention of an amount over $5,000 and I tend to freeze. Neither am I suggesting that the construction of a second trans-Canada highway commence tomorrow morning. I am simply suggesting that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of the construction of such a highway. I have done no
480	COMMONS
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route research whatever on this question, Mr. Speaker. The financial, geographical and other research I leave to the government; they have the facilities.
Since entering this house two weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that I have been particularly impressed with the system of priorities that has been developed by this government. The people of Canada, tired of minority governments, were caught by the glamorous, rosy, urbane, shopping plaza campaign of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They supported him in great numbers and expected great things. They were led to believe, in fact, that great things would be forthcoming.
The public looked forward to great surprises on the opening day of this parliament. They had a right to expect such an announcement that the government would give full consideration to the advisability of the building of a second trans-Canada highway. And if not this, Mr. Speaker, then certainly some bold project that would indicate that this government had some vision, some imagination and desire to continue to make Canada a truly great nation. The only surprise I have received since coming to parliament is to learn that the minister of external affairs has red hair. I had always thought it was black; I had seen him only on black and white television.
We also heard that this was going to be a "jumping parliament". The only jumping that we have seen from this parliament, Mr. Speaker, has been on this side of the house, hon. members jumping up and down to catch Your Honour's eye to ask a question.
Seriously, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that *Canada's future greatness lies in her present cities, as great as they might be, where most of our population is presently concentrated. In my opinion, whatever real future Canada has lies to the north. We have this enormous expanse of territory with untold and unheard of wealth buried beneath it. We must have a government with the imagination and daring to develop it.
I do not know much about Canada's north [DOT]generally, but I do have some idea of that part of the north that lies in my own constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and in that great land mass of Labrador. The surface in Labrador has not yet been scratched, Mr. Speaker. It is a great, rich land mass, a wilderness that has been successfully developed from an industrial
[Mr. Peddle.1
DEBATES	September 25, 1968
point of view in just three tiny areas that on the map look like three 10-cent pieces. There are, of course, countless small fishing settlements along the east coast of Labrador, but what I speak of is the fantastic industrial potential that lies inland.
I am proposing, Mr. Speaker, that this government give consideration, not only in the interest of Labrador but in the interest of the whole country, to the possibility and advisability of constructing a second trans-Canada highway to the north of the existing trans-Canada highway. This highway would join the present highway in the far west, cross Canada, go through northern Quebec, down through Labrador, across the Strait of Belle Isle, a distance of some eight or 10 miles, by means of a tunnel, bridge, causeway or what have you, and then come down through northern Newfoundland to connect with the present trans-Canada highway. In effect, this would make it a trans-Canada loop or belt, or whatever you wish to call it.
The people who live in Labrador now, in the towns of Labrador City, Wabush, Goose Bay, Happy Valley and, of course, that big power development at Churchill Falls, and in all the coastal communities are virtually prisoners. They have no access to the trans-Canada highway, or in fact to any highway. They have no access to Air Canada, except at Goose Bay perhaps once a week. The fare there is exorbitant and makes the journey completely impractical. The people have no access to the C.N.R., and it looks as though the whole province of Newfoundland will soon have no access to the C.N.R. They have no access to the C.B.C. Now and then canned programs are made available to them. I know of instances where our people have watched national hockey games in June.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Our people are Canadian in name only and are without the privileges enjoyed by other Canadians. Their pioneering spirit has received no encouragement and our up and coming generation has been given no road to follow other than the road which leads to prison. Most people say that since Newfoundland is an island, it is impossible to link it with the trans-Canada highway system. Those people forget that a large part of Labrador is also part of Newfoundland and shares a border with Quebec. Those living in Labrador are entitled to be linked by highway with the rest of the country just as people living in all other provinces are linked by highways to the
September 25, 1968
rest of the country. Such a link ought to be forged where it is physically possible to do so. Joey Smallwood's unholy fear of Quebec should not be a factor in preventing such a link.
Quebec seems to get on quite well with Ontario. You can go from Ontario to Quebec by road and from New Brunswick to Quebec by road. I do not know if the proposal of a highway link with any part of Newfoundland has been considered seriously by previous governments, but if it has been considered and if a study has been made, then I should like to see the report on that study. If such a study has not been made, then I should like to see it made. It is high time that governments forgot their preoccupation with a few of our large cities and concentrated their attention to some degree on that part of the country which holds the key to our future, the north.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, the notice of motion presented by the honourable member from Newfoundland and Labrador, who represents the constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give immediate consideration to the advisability of constructing a second Trans-Canada Highway that would link Labrador with the rest of Canada and thus develop the greatest remaining storehouse of natural wealth in Canada.
I may say at once, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is quite natural and well meant and it is, on the part of that member, a sign of clearsightedness. I would be inclined, as a matter of principle, to second his motion, especially if the honourable member would add that this highway could cover a part of the province of Quebec: for instance, starting from the Hyppolite Lafontaine tunnel in Montreal and going through Berthier, Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, across to Tadoussac and as far as the Labrador region. As a matter of principle there is obviously no objection to that. This is a remarkable project, as was said by the honourable member, and it is an undertaking that is bound to create considerable development in one part of Canada that contains untold wealth. However, Mr. Speaker, I believe two factors must, at this time, be considered. The notice of motion introduced by the hon. member-with all due respect-
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route seems to be worded in an equivocal language. In the first place, it reads in part:
-the government should give immediate attention to the advisability of constructing a second Trans-Canada Highway-
"Immediate attention"-Mr. Speaker, in the course of the debate on the Speech from the Throne, I heard some hon. members say that the government had not done this or that, had not examined this or that, and that we do not know where we are heading with the just society. Questions are being asked as to where we are headed with the new procedure.
Therefore, the opposition seems to understand that this new government, that wants to create a new policy, already has, as regards work groups or task forces as our English friends say, a large number of organizations, and the one responsible for administration will have to work day and night for many years to come in order to get all this done. If we are going to tie them down to the consideration of a project of this scope immediately, I am under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that it will be too great an enterprise, that we are putting the cart before the horse.
After all, as my honourable friends say, one must set certain priorities. Now, there are things that have been left undone and that cannot be settled at present. Hence, it is unwise I think-and I will attempt to prove it in a few minutes-to force the government to consider this question immediately.
Secondly, the hon. member talks about the advisability of building a second Trans-Canada highway. I say that this is ambiguous Mr. Speaker. To me, a Trans-Canada highway is one that would start in British Columbia-I say this in English in order to please my friends who chide me for calling it "Colom-bie-Britannique" when I am asking them to say "Trois-Rivieres" instead of Three Rivers-and go through all the provinces up to Labrador and Newfoundland.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there is ambiguity here. To me, this would be an interprovincial highway. First, we would have to get both provinces to come to an agreement, which would not be a mean thing, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows that since the Labrador matter has been discussed for many years now. Some people in my province say that Newfoundland robbed them of Labrador and they will not change their mind easily about that. Therefore, can one imagine how we could have them come to an agreement in order to build that interprovincial highway, with the federal

482	COMMONS
Request for Second Trans-Canada. Route government contributing its share eventually, which would bring no objection on my part, but I should remind my hon. friend that the government is already facing projects that will require almost phenomenal investments. There is, for instance, the medicare scheme, which has not been implemented yet to all practical purposes and which is going to cost, it seems, some $800 to $900 million. The provinces are reluctant to adopt this plan, as they claim they cannot afford it.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Therefore, if it is doubtful if this is really a Trans-Canada highway, and if the whole Canadian people are required to pay the cost,
I wonder whether this is very wise.
Secondly, there is the Prince Edward Island causeway where the work has been progressing slowly because of the present financial situation. There is a good deal of other projects which the government had considered and initiated such as, for instance, the C.B.C. building in Montreal the construction of which has to be postponed due to the financial situation.
Even if the project were only to be considered at the present time, it would mean considerable investments, because appraisals are always expensive. A feeling is then created in the country which is contrary to the directives of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and of the leaders who control Canadian finance. According to them, all levels of government, whether municipal, provincial or federal, should now set an example by restricting their investments, encouraging individuals to do the same, because of the uncertain financial climate which exists in the whole world and naturally also affects Canada.
Therefore, psychologically speaking, if we undertake a project needing an investment of several million dollars, we run the risk of having the Canadian public say: the federal government is irresponsible; they ask us to restrict our investments, they have put off projects already decided on, mapped out and accessed because of the existing financial problem, and yet now they are undertaking another multimillion dollar project.
Information about those things can be obtained, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I have here the annual report on the Trans-Canada highway for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, published by the Department of Public Works. And just to prove you, for instance, that it would be difficult for Quebec, Newfoundland and the federal government to come to an

DEBATES	September 25, 1968
agreement, it is only necessary to note that the first bill goes back to 1949, but its expiry date had to be postponed several times, that Quebec decided to participate in the project only in 1960, on several conditions and that, finally, the cost of the whole thing was $825 million, and to use an expression which is quite popular at home, $825 million it is not just peanuts.
In my opinion, this notice of motion is ambiguous, equivocal, in that it refers to a Trans-Canada highway when it is instead an interprovincial one. If my hon. friend wants to pursue his project-which I agree has a certain merit-he should see, for example, our friend the Premier of Newfoundland, suggest that he meet the Premier of Quebec, then that they clear the ground or, at least, understand each other and he should make sure that they are ready to work together, which is not too certain, and get them to decide whether they are able to pay the 50 per cent share of their required contribution or the percentage agreed upon.
That is not too sure, because they both have financial difficulties, and here, I can picture the premier of my province pulling aces out of his sleeve and saying: "You stole Labrador from us; first, give back Labrador, if you want us to talk business." If the premier does not say it, some of his ministers or other Quebecers will, and maybe Mr. Smallwood will voice his own conditions. This might be the first step; only after that could the provincial government intervene. But as far as I am concerned, it would be illogical at this moment to let the public know of the idea that the federal government would embark upon a project of that importance, even though it is worthwhile-and I repeat that it is-because all worthy projects have to be implemented step by step.
I am sure that out of the 263 members here, 200 have brilliant plans for the investment of government's money, and a thousand good reasons, but there comes a time when we must say: Well, we have to consider our means, because the bill will go to the taxpayers.
Efforts are made to reduce the budget. I saw how our friends opposite reacted this afternoon when the main estimates were mentioned. Right away someone said: Have they increased or decreased? Then, someone else said: No, they have increased but savings have been made just the same in the sense that otherwise the estimates would be much
September 25, 1968
higher. What should we think about the passing of such a notice of motion? I assess it only if it covers the province of Quebec and I made some rapid calculations. Even if it covers the province of Quebec only and the part concerned in Newfoundland and then connects with the national highway, $400 or $500 million have already been spent. Although the bill is very worthwhile, my friends will no doubt understand that, even if we would all like to drive a Cadillac or fly in a Jet Star, if we cannot afford them we do not buy them.
I come back to one of my earlier conclusions: the notice of motion as drafted is ambiguous because it is not about a Trans-Canada highway, but an interprovincial highway, which is something completely different. Furthermore, it burdens the government with an immediate responsibility, since it says that the government should give immediate consideration to it. I see, for instance, the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) who stays up until all hours, not to go on a spree, but to do his homework for the next day. He will be called upon to create a specialized research team, to find experts to give immediate consideration to that. He or another minister, will have to keep an eye on these studies, at a time when the idea of ministers being absent during the question period is being frowned upon. He will surely have to be absent if he is given an additional burden. He is quite busy enough as it is and the same goes for other government experts.
Then it is equivocal, premature and does not take into account the fact that the federal government has already some considerable commitments of which it must defer the carrying out, because it must precisely take into account the taxpayers' solvency. This is why the opposition is charging the government with having overburdened the taxpayers; but such a procedure which existed well before the government was in power, is obviously adjusted to the cost of living and meets all the demands of the members which lead the government to make investments even when they are beyond its means.
Now, I will summarize my comments, Mr. Speaker. The government has already undertaken to make huge investments beyond the reasonable limits which it had set. It should now honour its first commitments.
Secondly, a situation is created which runs counter to the directives emanating from the honourable Minister of Finance, since word has spread that the government is ready to
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route commit itself, without batting an eye, to a multi-million dollar project, even if it is deemed as worthy as it was said to be, a moment ago.
Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, this project is drafted in ambiguous terms, since it deals with a trans-Canada highway, whereas it should be an interprovincial highway, I think, not a trans-Canada highway. I also believe that, previous to this, an agreement should be reached between Newfoundland and Quebec, and this will not be easy. It is not necessarily for the federal government to take the first step toward such agreements. This should be done by our Newfoundland friends, the main parties in this matter. It is they who want to be in, so it is they who should start consultations with the Quebec government.
If they manage to reach a reasonable agreement, this will give the federal government time to breathe, at least for four or five years, as it will probably drag on judging by the time it took for the Transcanada highway. Now, in 4 or 5 years' time, the financial international climate will have improved-at least we hope so. Of course, the federal government's situation will have certainly improved too and it is quite possible that at that time it will be in a position to say: You made an agreement. This is an interprovincial highway. The two provinces concerned have reached an agreement and we are ready to contribute for such proportion, since it has to do with the development of natural resources in a part of the country where resources are plentiful.
Mr. Speaker, it is the reason why, whilst I recognize that in principle the proposition is worthwhile, I object to it for the reasons I have just enumerated.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) on having introduced this motion. I admire the frankness with which he admitted that he has not considered all its implications. What he is suggesting is something very far reaching, a highway from the east to the west. Well, we have heard a similar proposal made many times, but the suggestion has always been that the highway be built from the west to the east. The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is in favour of starting this new second trans-Canada highway in northern British Columbia and heading it eastward. It is interesting to find a new member wanting to start it in the east and head it west.

484	COMMONS
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) is probably wrong on three or four counts. One of them would be the assumption that this proposed second trans-Canada highway would go through Trois-Rivieres. I am sure we have in mind that it would be placed much further north, in which case it would not have much effect upon Trois-Rivieres.
It was interesting to hear those two hon. members speak, because obviously the one on the Liberal side is not liberal but conservative, and the one on the Conservative side is not conservative but liberal-with a small "c" and a small "1", of course. The situation is that the man who calls the tune must pay the piper, and the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres is on the side of the house which is more directly concerned with raising the money. It is probably easier to consider this proposal from the point of view of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador who would have less preoccupation with raising the necessary money than would a supporter of the government.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I believe there would be a great deal of merit to the development of a second trans-Canada highway. I know much argument was advanced against the federal government becoming involved in the building of the first trans-Canada highway. The proposal to build this highway was advanced in the early 1940's and was brought to fruition in the Trans-Canada Highway Act of 1949. The first highway was built on a voluntary basis. Any province could participate if it wished to get the benefit of the program. If it did not wish to participate it need not, and the province of Quebec stayed out until the early 1960's.
Difficulties have arisen in some provinces regarding the development of interprovincial highways. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres was correct in saying that some highway programs have already resulted in an interprovincial exchange. This is true with respect to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. This gives rise to my interest in this matter. In Ontario we designated the northern route of the trans-Canada highway through the northern part of the province, and highway No. 17 was designated as the southern route of the trans-Canada highway. Such a program spurs people's imagination. By building the trans-Canada highway we provided a route from east to west which now carries most of our Canadian traffic. A person from the west finds it no

DEBATES	September 25, 1968
longer advantageous to travel through the United States to get to eastern Canada. As a matter of fact, he can travel through central Canada over two different routes.
The building of the trans-Canada highway resulted in greater development of tourist industries, the profit from which is now more than the cost of building the highway. The highway was built with a 50 per cent contribution of the cost to a provincial government by the federal government, and the federal government made a 90 per cent grant of the cost covering 10 per cent of the route through a province where the most difficult construction was involved.
I am sure that if that 10 per cent link in Labrador were to take the form of a tunnel connecting Labrador to Newfoundland it would produce some interesting results. I understand that studies have been made concerning a proposal to build a causeway from Labrador to Newfoundland, and it was discovered that if a causeway were built the course of the Gulf Stream would be changed. As a result England would have a climate similar to northern Canada. It would have snow and ice for six months of the year, and most of the northern Europe would be in a semi-frigid state for four or five months of the year.
If the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador does a little research, I am sure he will find it not too difficult to raise subscriptions from European countries and Great Britain to help finance the construction of a tunnel rather than a causeway, because a tunnel would not affect their climates.
I have had the opportunity of travelling through northern Quebec. I know of the construction taking place in many of its northern areas. There is a very good highway coming from the west through Rouyn, Noranda, Val d'Or, and La Verendrye park down to Mont-Laurier. If one is travelling from west to east and wishes to come to Ottawa I recommend that highway. I think westerners should travel it at least once because it is a very interesting trip. It is not much longer than any other route although it appears to be longer. If this highway were the northern route of the trans-Canada it could be extended through the Lake St. Jean area, over to Labrador City, on into Labrador, and from there reach the island of Newfoundland.
I believe that with the advent of a second trans-Canada highway tremendous development would take place in the area through
September 25, 1968

which it runs. Almost all of the railway-development in the northern areas of B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec has been in a north to south direction. The only feasible way to provide transportation across those northern areas is by highway. If a highway were built many natural resources would be opened up for development.
It is all very well for the government to say it will not consider a second trans-Canada highway. I wonder, has it not considered some of the advantages which would flow from the building of a second trans-Canada highway. For many years I, as a Canadian, was not proud of the fact that if I had to go to western Canada I had to drive through the United States to get there. Our country was developed by the building of a railroad across it. But now modes of transportation have changed. A second trans-Canada highway is necessary.
We are plagued with unemployment, but I would not suggest that we should build highways to help combat unemployment. We would be very disgusted if we saw the federal government participate in a program of pick and shovel work to help fight unemployment.
Many rugged construction problems were solved in the building of the first trans-Canada highway. The lessons learned then, covering methods of construction and the building of a highway in winter time, could reduce the costs of a second highway. It is not easy to forecast the cost of such highway construction, nor is it easy to forecast how much resource material would be developed as a result, but I suggest that any party which wishes to implement a vision of expansion, as well as the vision of a just society for all parts of Canada, must give consideration to providing modern means of transportation in northern areas. Such a program would meet the wishes of the people living in the northern areas, and people in the rest of Canada have always shown a great deal of sympathy for the development of under developed areas.
While the hon. member who has proposed this motion has apologized for not having done a lot of research on the matter, I think the government has not done enough research. I think the hon. member is correct in his proposal for a second trans-Canada highway and for suggesting that a study be undertaken to see what it costs, and what
DEBATES	485
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route the eventual benefits flowing from it would be. I think the government must have a much better answer before it can refuse the hon. member the opportunity of a study of this matter which is long overdue. I should like to congratulate the member who comes from the east for initiating a program that has long been the hope of some people from the central and western parts of Canada. I hope he is in this house long enough to see the completion of this highway, and I hope there will be a tunnel rather than a causeway. Those who live in other parts of the country, and who may be interested in our second trans-Canada highway, will be pleased if the government takes action.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the notice of motion which appears on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), and in view of the fact that I represent the large Manicouagan riding, which borders on the province of Newfoundland, I thought that I could perhaps supply some explanations and information, because I have myself often discussed that project and I have talked about it several times with various associations in my riding.
I know that the new member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador has noticed many times that the people he represents in the mining towns of Labrador live isolated, without any communication. This is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that you can only appreciate if you are there or if you have the opportunity to visit that extremely large territory. Of course, following some tremendous mining developments, the number of people has increased, year after year, and they ask, quite rightly, for a communications system, mainly roads.
There is one railroad to serve certain towns but that railroad is used mainly by the mining companies for their ore; the population of those towns do not find it at all suitable.
A while ago, I said that the boundaries of Newfoundland, which are adjacent to my riding, give rise to about the same problems that I have to face. But when we speak of a Trans-Canada highway we speak of roads, of provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, on several occasions when I brought up the matter, I was always told that previous federal-provincial agreements would be necessary. The
September 25, 1968
486	COMMONS
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route notice of motion of the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) stipulates, as a suggestion, that contacts will have to be made with the provinces concerned.
I have already brought together the representatives of the municipalities interested in the matter, as well as representatives of Chambers of Commerce and of various other organizations. I told them, and I repeat it now, that there are organizations and instruments which can be used to develop that part of the country. This brings me to speak of the contribution of the federal government towards the construction of access roads to our natural resources. The federal government participated, during four years, on the basis of 50 per cent of the cost, in the construction of access roads, precisely with a view to developing our natural resources. I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Pepin) last year in this regard. I put it on September 29, 1967, that is a year ago, and asked him:
Has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources renewed an agreement with the Quebec government for 1967-68 with respect to the construction of access roads to natural resources? In the affirmative, what is the share of the federal government under this agreement?
Naturally, the reply I received was a simple no. And so, the agreement was not renewed last year. In addition, I added, as given on page 2683 of the Hansard tor September 29:
I know that not long ago, there was a meeting of the provincial ministers of mines and, if I am not mistaken, the renewal of this agreement was requested. Consequently, I would ask the minister to take note of this request, because the 50,000 citizens in my riding who are now working in the mining industry have no means of transportation, except by air. There is also the railway but, as everyone knows, that is for the mining operations.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Personally, I feel that requests have already been made, that consultations or meetings have already taken place. It was always said that there were instruments, machinery within the federal government that could help the provinces interested build such a road.
I do not see why federal-provincial conferences should not be held to reach some agreement. I had said also that it was not really part of the Trans-Canada highway because everyone knows that it does not go through the North Shore or Labrador.
However, I added that there might be a section of the Trans-Canada highway for whose construction the federal government
[Mr. Blouin.l

could grant aid. Speaking of instruments and machinery, an agency like ARDA could take part in such projects. ARDA is an agency which has already made agreements with provincial governments, and which can also give its assistance and contribution to such programs.
Mr. Speaker, I know that a great deal of work has been done. Many requests have been made and in the last three or four years, I personally tried to make contacts and undertake what might be called profitable negotiations.
I know that at the present time, people cannot remain completely isolated from the rest of the world. With regard to the road which might be a section of the Trans-Canada highway, and which would run along the north shore, I must tell my friend of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) that there have been meetings with the former Minister of Labrador Affairs. Rather extensive studies, and reports were even made. A delegation from Sept-Iles even met the Premier of Newfoundland last year, always in connection with that highway. It had been suggested that the road could run along the north coast until the strait of Belle-Isle and that it might be necessary to build a tunnel under the strait of Belle-Isle or a pier over it.
I could say that following certain studies- international agreements would be necessary-that project for the construction of a pier was abandoned. At the present time, a ferryboat runs across twice a day. Even if there is no proper road, there is however a portion of road extending for about 40 miles around Blanc-Sablon. In the strait of Belle-Isle, a ferryboat runs from Sainte-Barbe, (Newfoundland) to Blanc-Sablon, twice a day.
Another portion of road is under construction-I mentioned earlier the participation of the federal government in the development of natural resources and the construction of access roads from Baie-Comeau to Manicoua-gan, thanks to a subsidy granted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Natural Resources. The road extends about 40 miles. About 80 miles remain yet to be built, but that road running through Manicouagan could serve at the same time the towns of Gagnon, Wabush, Labrador City, Schefferville, and eventually the Churchill Falls project. Work has already started-


Georges-J. Valade: Would the hon. member permit me to ask him a question?
September 25, 1968	COMMONS


Gustave Blouin: Certainly.


Georges-J. Valade: I would not want to interrupt the hon. member for Manicouagan, who champions very well the interests of his riding, but I would like to merely ask him what he thinks about the statement and the answer made by his colleague, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (M. Mongrain), who so justly taxed our colleague of wanting to spend the Canadian government's money, when it does not have the means to spend that money. Am I to understand that the hon. member for Manicouagan does not agree with the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres?


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, I am pleased to say that I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, who always expresses himself well, and who has dealt with the financial aspect of the matter.
Of course, that is an interesting aspect, and it can get difficult when projects of millions of dollars are at stake. I do understand that, for any government, those projects are not easily implemented. But I think that my colleague for Trois-Rivieres expressed himself very well, particularly on the financial aspect.
However, to go back to the financial matter and to the development of the north, in Newfoundland as well as in Quebec, there is room for fantastic developments, Mr. Speaker, projects of $2 billion for the construction of railroads, towns, port facilities, etc. This means that the federal government has also drawn large revenues from the investments made in that area of my constituency and this would justify consideration of the plan. Indeed, I read in a recently published magazine The Region with a Future, that the mining companies operating in northern Quebec and in Newfoundland pay each year some $25 million to the treasury. I think therefore that this would justify some federal investments in spite of other plans, as my hon. colleague for Trois-Rivieres so well stated. However, I am aware of the fact that this is impossible because of various problems throughout the country. Certain projects are urgent, but a population of about 50,000 inhabitants cannot be indefinitely neglected.
29180-32J
DEBATES	487
Request for Second Trans-Canada Route
I think that all the members on both sides of the house do not realize how the population has increased in that part of Labrador. Now, speaking of Labrador, I wish to mention that Labrador is not located only in Newfoundland but also in Quebec, I must admit that most of it is in Newfoundland, but still a part of it is in Quebec. I wish to emphasize that when one speaks of Labrador one must not forget that there is also a part of it in Quebec. It is true that most of Labrador belongs to Newfoundland, but nevertheless a part of it belongs to Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that the federal government has agencies and instruments which could be used for such projects. But beforehand, there must be a federal-provincial agreement.
These agencies, these government institutions could help by participating in such a project. Legislation concerning participation in the construction of access roads to our natural resources could be brought up to date. There is the ARDA program, which is important and could help in such an undertaking.
We should all work together to help these isolated people and give them the means of communication to which they have a right. If we used to this end the revenues I mentioned earlier-for this undertaking would certainly justify such an investment-I think we could get some concrete results.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. members would the government house leader restate the sequence the government proposes to follow in placing business before the house tomorrow and Friday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The first order of business will be a motion for interim supply. When that has been dealt with the house will return to the

September 25, 1968
Business of the House motion to set up a committee to report on procedures to deal with statutory instruments. Following that, the government proposes to call the resolutions preceding the three farm finance bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30 in the afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 26, 1968

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting revised estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1969, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.