1968-12-20

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, if the house will grant me the indulgence on this, the last opportunity that we will have in this chamber to wish the Prime Minister well when he attends the Commonwealth prime ministers' conference, I would like the opportunity of speaking not only for myself as a former prime minister who knows something of those conferences but I am sure for members in all parts of the house in wishing him well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister will face a conference different from anything he has ever attended before as representatives gather from all parts of the world in a conference representing the greatest number of people dedicated to freedom and peace that has ever occurred in the history of the world. There will be many tremendous problems to be faced. There will be no vote at the conference, but there will finally be a consensus and agreement when men and women, representing every colour and race, sit around that prime ministers' conference table whose desire will be to do their part to assure the preservation of the Commonwealth and the peace of the world.
In that conference the Prime Minister will speak for all Canadians, and I wish him well. It is a challenging, fascinating, tremendous experience, and I am sure when he sees Her Majesty the Queen he will convey to her the loyalty, affection and devotion of Canadians as a whole.
I say again to the Prime Minister, with the great powers he possesses and the challenging opportunities that will be his, that the hopes and aspirations of Canadians will be carried by him. I repeat that he will speak for all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues and myself I wish to join the right hon. gentleman in wishing the Prime Minister well. As I am sure he has done, over many years I have watched the development from empire into Commonwealth and have been struck by the most important fact about the present Commonwealth, which is that it is a mixture of forms of government, monarchical and republican, and even more important a mixture of races, every country of every race claiming and having equal status with every other country.
I do not know exactly what the agenda of the Prime Ministers Conference will be, but obviously the question of the treatment of other races in some parts of the Commonwealth, the relationship of the Commonwealth to the United Nations and to events in Europe, the whole problem of feeding a hungry world and of making the Commonwealth work for human equality across the world, are part of the notions that all of us have about the value of the Commonwealth in the present day. And I say without reservation I have confidence that on these matters of human liberty and civil liberty the Prime Minister will represent Canada well, and I wish him an interesting and fruitful time at the conference.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, would like also to wish the Prime Minister a pleasant trip overseas for the conference of the Commonwealth countries. We would also ask him to urge those countries-I have already mentioned that-to put an end to the hostilities in Nigeria and to make representations to England so that it will stop selling arms to Nigeria, in order that peace may be restored in that country where so many people are dying when we are hoping for peace and prosperity everywhere.
We also ask the Prime Minister to suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that he could relieve his headaches by allowing the Bank of Canada-as some Commonwealth countries are allowing their central banks to do-to grant interest free loans to the provinces and the municipalities to further our country's development.
December 20, 1368

Commonwealth Conference [DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I am very touched by the wishes I have received. I want to thank the right hon. member tor Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) in particular for his good wishes. I must confess that I am quite excited at the prospect of this conference. It will be an exciting conference, in an exciting city. The whole proceedings, admittedly, will be a little mysterious to me. It will be my first such conference but' not my last, I hope.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Trudeau:: I should add, that I hope it will not be the last that any Canadian prime minister will attend. I am confident that these meetings of Commonwealth heads of government will go on for many, many years. I have heard many definitions of the Commonwealth, but perhaps the one that is most embracing is that it is an assembly of unalphabetically arranged names. It is a meeting of men of good will from many lands.
I am looking forward to the discussions. I will do more listening than talking. I have not, as I say, been enriched by any previous experience in this regard, but I have taken at least a minimum precaution. I have made sure that I will be occupying the same suite, in the same hotel, that was occupied by the right hon. member for Prince Albert at previous Commonwealth conferences in the hope that perhaps some of his wisdom and knowledge will rub off on me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am very conscious of the points underscored by the leader of the New Democratic party, that this is a great occasion for men representing countries of many ethnic and racial origins, situated at varying degrees of the economic and social ladder, to discuss together problems and solutions. I recognize that this is a very important meeting in this sense, that we as equals can discuss problems which make us so unequal because of accidents of birth and geography. I think we can do a great deal to show the world the concepts of pluralism in which we in Canada believe and in which members of the Commonwealth, by the mere fact that they are members of the Commonwealth, also believe.

It can be said that Canada, with its pluralist philosophy does its utmost to direct the Bank of Canada, if not toward the ideology advocated by the hon. member for the Rallie-ment Creditiste, at least toward pluralism where people whatever their origin or their language, can live in peace in a modern world.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among various groups with respect to the standing committee on Indian affairs and northern development, and I think there might be general agreement to the introduction and acceptance of a motion to empower the committee to consider the annual report of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year ending March 31, 1968; to empower the committee to adjourn from place to place; and that the clerk of the committee and the necessary supporting staff might accompany the committee.
I wonder, if leave is given, whether this motion could be put and perhaps made an order of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered by the house.



ORDER OF PRECEDENCE


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the house that the Governor General has approved a recommendation I made to him, concerning a change in the table of precedence for Canada, so that the precedence of the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons will give due recognition to the importance of their office as representatives of the legislative branch of the government.

Consequently the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons shall now be given precedence immediately
IMr. Dumont.]
December 20, 1983

following the head of the executive branch and the head of the judiciary. I am confident that this change will be greeted with approval in the house, and that all members will be happy to see due recognition given to the occupant of your high office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the same recommendation, and in keeping with the same concept of recognizing the significance of parliamentary offices, I have proposed that the precedence of the Leader of the Opposition should also be advanced. Henceforth the Leader of the Opposition will be accorded precedence immediately following members of the cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure every member of the house will be delighted at the announcement of the Prime Minister relating to the precedence to be given your office and the office of the Speaker of the Senate. We welcome it in terms of yourself personally, but above all in terms of the high office you hold. It shows the increased respect with which we are treating parliament in approving the announcement of the Prime Minister. You, sir, have brought great lustre to the House of Commons as the Speaker of this chamber, and it is certainly most fitting that you should have been in the chair when the Prime Minister made this announcement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Now, sir, with regard to the position of the Leader of the Opposition, through you may I express my personal appreciation to the Prime Minister. I hope that coming so close in rank to the lofty office of the ministers will not go to my head. I will of course, by virtue of my office, expect to be treated with great respect by everybody from now on and to be approached with the appropriate amount of bowing and scraping. I expect that not in my personal capacity but out of respect to the high office I now hold.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, because of the very high regard that all of us in this house have for Your Honour we welcome this opportunity to demonstrate that fact by giving our applause to the announcement the Prime Minister has been pleased to make. I confess that I have a
House of Commons
penchant for making amendments, and if it were possible I would like to amend the statement so as to put Your Honour ahead of the Speaker of the Senate, but I gather there is no rule under which I can move such an amendment. No, please do not mention rule 16-A.
On behalf of the members of this group I join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in paying this interim tribute to the way in which you have graced the chair during the last parliament and during this one. We are pleased you are being referred to as our permanent Speaker, even though there may be no such nomenclature in our statutes. In our view you are helping to improve the image of parliament by the way in which you are fulfilling your role. We are very happy to join in this expression of tribute to Your Honour. We welcome the other changes that are indicated in the statement, in particular because we look forward to future developments.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the perfect day for season's greetings.
In any event, my colleagues and I welcome the announcement made by the right hon. Prime Minister, and we do not think it is a present. We think that the changes he made in the table of precedence are useful and necessary, and we congratulate him.
In examining rule 16A these past few days, I was worried that the efficiency and authority of the Chair would be questioned, but I notice that the right hon. Prime Minister now recognizes this authority and we welcome the decision taken.



PILOTAGE


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and two copies in French of the second report of the royal commission on pilotage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4212	COMMONS
Expansion of Toronto Airport HARBOURS



TABLING OF STUDY OF DECENTRALIZATION, IN ENGLISH

Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley raised the question of my undertaking to table a study of harbour administration in Canada, which I had given in the house some time previously. The problem is the translation of the study is not yet complete. A number of people have requested that it be made public in the interim, including the executive secretary of the Montreal port authority. If it were the opinion of the house that I might now table the copies in English, with the undertaking that copies in French will be laid on the table as soon as they are ready which I understand will be early in the New Year, I would be pleased to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



AIRPORTS


Paul Theodore Hellyer: While I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make an announcement with regard to the Toronto international airport. If copies of this statement have not been circulated to members of the opposition I apologize, and I should like my staff to see that this is done immediately.
In 1966 the Department of Transport engaged a firm of consultants to develop a conceptual plan for expansion of airport facilities to cope with the increases forecast for air line passenger, general aviation and air cargo demands in the Toronto area. The consultant's report submitted to the department in late 1967 concluded that expansion of the present Toronto international airport was the most economic and viable course of action to satisfy these requirements, conditional upon three important factors.
The first was that additional land was available for expansion. The second was that an adequate ground transportation system could be provided; and, third, that land use compatibility could be satisfied with respect to the communities surrounding the airport. After officials of the department had carefully studied the many technical proposals in the report, I announced publicly on August 2 last that the government was prepared to proceed

DEBATES	December 20, 1968
with expansion provided the three conditional matters were met, but it should not be carried out at the expense of the general interest of many residents who live near the airport.
Since the announcement, members of my department and myself from time to time have had a series of meetings with officials of the government of Ontario, with the municipalities surrounding the airport, with interested members of parliament mainly from the Toronto area, with the various members of the air line industry, and with volunteer citizens' groups.
Many citizens of the area expressed concern about the possible increased noise which could be generated by an expanded airport, and a number of the municipalities in the area surrounding the airport said serious problems would be encountered in rearranging existing planning and development programs in adjacent municipalities.
On the basis of the sociological implications of the proposed expansion, and in consideration of the present use of land in the area, the government has concluded that the condition of land use compatibility cannot be satisfied. Consequently we have decided against full scale expansion of the airport at Malton. Instead, a joint federal-provincial government committee will be established to study alternative sites for future expansion to serve the southern Ontario region.
The Toronto international airport will be developed to sufficient capacity to meet presently foreseen requirements for servicing large jets being introduced in 1971, and the volume of passenger traffic up to the late 1970's or even into the early 1980's. The development will include extending an east-west runway in the northern part of the airport, building new terminal facilities, and providing additional service and control facilities to handle the expected increase in passengers and freight. Work will start immediately. The present airport will continue to operate as a base for air carrier operations, for special general aviation operations and as an aircraft industrial base even after a second airport is opened.
Plans for future expansion will take full account of the direction of urban growth in the area. Facilities will provide the most up to date capabilities for dealing with advancing air technology, including supersonic aircraft.
We are satisfied that this alternative proposal can efficiently meet the problem of
December 20, 1968	COMMONS
providing the best in services for the air travelling public, while still protecting the basic rights of the many residents of the Toronto urban area.
There will always be a problem in reconciling the demands of progress with the basic concerns and rights of human beings, and the members of the federal government are fully aware of the difficulties in arriving at solutions satisfactory to everyone. Proper solutions depend upon full co-operation of all members of the community. This proposal for Toronto international airport represents the kind of solution that can emerge when all citizens participate in a dialogue with the government in a spirit of reason and good will.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather extensive nature of the statement I wish the minister had followed the custom of some of his colleagues and sent out advance notices. Perhaps he will do so in the future. In view of the short notice I think the remarks of members on this side of the house must be in rather general terms.
Generally speaking it appears that the government has made a wise decision here, inasmuch as there were many complaints and objections by citizens in the area which clearly have received reasonable consideration by the government. The government has apparently decided not to bring the very large supersonic jets of the future into the existing facilities, or even the expanded ones, at the Toronto international airport, and I think this is the correct approach to be taken. However, the minister did indicate that somewhat larger jets will be flying into that area in the immediate future and that there will be an extension of runways and the like.
I hope the government will continue its policy of listening very carefully to complaints made by citizens and business firms in this area, because these expanded jet liners and the larger jumbos are not only noisy nuisances but can present actual hazards to life and property.
There is little else one can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker. I am very glad, as I am sure all members are, that consideration has been given to the building of a large new airport for aircraft of the future, situated in a place which will present no serious nuisance or danger to citizens.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as one of the members representing a Toronto riding and also speaking on behalf of
DEBATES	4213
Expansion of Toronto Airport my colleagues I greet with delight the fact that the minister has changed his mind since last August. However, I express the hope that the extensions of the airport that he has mentioned will not be so large as to defeat the purpose he has in mind. I am sure the affected residents will also hope that is the case.
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)
Will you permit me to take a moment, Mr. Speaker, to say that this experience underlines what some of us have suggested for some time, that there is a need for a permanent kind of organization to plan developments in the major urban metropolitan centres of Canada. Unfortunately the minister came to a conclusion last August on the basis of reports he had received, and only after the people in the affected areas had been frightened out of their wits was he able to consider their representations and change his mind. How much better it would have been if we had had some permanent organization made up of federal, provincial, regional or municipal members-an urban council, as the members of my party have suggested. I feel that if modern developments and the results of technological progress of every sort were discussed by the three levels of government before a decision is made we might avoid the rather frightening situation that the citizens of the affected areas faced until now. I am glad at last the right thing is being done.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the statement just made by the hon. Minister of Transports, I would like to say, on behalf of the Ralliement Creditiste, that we are happy to learn that serious efforts have been made to reconcile the necessities of progress and the expansion of the international airport in Toronto with those of the citizens of that region.
In view of the modern age opening for us in the field of aeronautics, we must now, as the previous speaker has just said, introduce measures and establish continuing organizations in order to plan and anticipate solutions to problems which might arise from the creation of an air base, for these problems sometimes come into conflict with human needs.
Mr. Speaker, although the people of Toronto welcome the announcement of the minister, we are nevertheless anxious in Quebec regarding the construction of the future international airport. I take this opportunity to point this out to the minister, so that similar problems can be avoided in the future, and that
4214	COMMONS
Carr Commission Report we may set up immediately or in the near future, a permanent body, as suggested by the member who spoke before me that can then anticipate problems and also conciliate the expansion of the airport with the economic needs of the region. I feel that we would thus show real foresight, for which the people would be grateful.
I should therefore like to point out to the minister that central Quebec should be taken into consideration in the planning of the future international airport, in the hope that the airport can be as efficient and as interesting as the one in Toronto.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table before the house the two versions, English and French of Volume I of the study entitled: "Yukon Economy: Growth and Life Expectation". This volume represents the main part of the survey made by the consulting economists D. William Carr and Associates Limited at the request of the federal and Yukon governments.
It will be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that on September 24, I advised the house that the government had received a preliminary report on this study. Later on, I distributed a summary thereof to the members. At the time, I promised to table the interim report in extenso, as soon as the French version would be ready. However, the consulting economists gave us the final report soon after, and as it was almost identical to the preliminary report, I thought it preferable to table the final report.
The report was handed to us in eight volumes. Volumes 2 to 8 inclusive are studies on documents and will be available for consultation in some of the libraries in Ottawa and Whitehorse.
I should like to point out to the house that the views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the federal and territorial governments, although those two governments commissioned the study and the report.
The report will be put on sale throughout Canada through the Queen's Printer. Copies have been shipped to the Yukon for immediate sale.
DEBATES	December 20, 1968



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in English and French copies of a white paper entitled "Policies for Price Stability".


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am in order, seeing the minister has made no statement, in attempting to make a comment or two on this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. According to the rules statements may be made by hon. members in opposition only if the minister has made a statement. But if there is agreement the Leader of the Opposition could make a statement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I must express the greatest of disappointment in the policies which have been announced and in the board that is being established. I think we all recall the announcement by the former prime minister at the time of the financial crisis last winter, in which he indicated that there would be a substantial new effort to deal with inflation. In all fairness I can only say that the mountain laboured and produced a mouse.
I make my remarks at this time, not to be provocative but to try to bring to the minister, the Prime Minister and members of the government some sense of urgency regarding inflation and the resulting handicaps it is imposing on the country. We now have an unacceptable rate of inflation associated with an unacceptable amount of unemployment in the country.


Stanley Ronald Basford: That is what the white paper says.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am not so much interested in what the white paper says as in what the government proposes to do. I was disturbed when the Prime Minister said the other day that the government's programs are working well. In fact we have in this country an alarming inflationary psychology which

December 20, 1968

already has a very pronounced effect on the willingness of our citizens to buy medium or long term obligations. That must also be of concern to the Minister of Finance with regard to his ability to manage the public debt; certainly it must be of concern to the provinces with regard to their ability to manage their public debts.
I say, sir, that considering the continuing unacceptable rate of inflation which is associated with unemployment and the very alarming manifestation of a deterioration in the psychological attitude of investors toward investment, my hon. friends opposite ought to know that it may be far later than they think with regard to dealing with inflation. Setting up this commission under these circumstances is equivalent to arming the Canadian armed forces with pop guns.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in common with the Leader of the Opposition the members of our party were disappointed that the minister made no statement when introducing this new measure. We have been waiting to hear what he would say, to see how his remarks would differ from the statement he prepared for the ministers of finance at the conference. I have studied the latter material carefully, and I imagine that his comments on the measure presently before us would not have been very different. May I be permitted to comment in several ways on this commission and on what it is likely to do. The Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the comments she proposes to make should be brief. Even if the minister had made a statement, according to the rules comments made should still be brief, and I think the hon. member should keep that in mind. Since statements have been made by representatives of parties in opposition I think later the minister might be allowed to make a statement on behalf of the party in opposition to the opposition parties. Perhaps he should be allowed later on to do that.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, when people start to caution me and they have not cautioned anybody ahead of me I am always a little leery, but I shall certainly keep Your Honour's remarks in mind. I have heard some fairly lengthy statements this morning but I will certainly be governed by your caution, Mr. Speaker.

White Paper on Price Stability [DOT] (11:40 a.m.)
I wish it were possible for us to welcome the package which the amiable and hard working minister has put under the Christmas tree, but I am afraid I would be doing less than my duty to the people I represent if I did not point out that there are serious dents and bumps in this package. I wish to say strongly and definitely that what is required at this time is not another educational seminar, not further information and evidence as to the need for something to be done about inflation or the general method of coping with it. What is required now is a prices and incomes board with teeth in it.
I want to enumerate what one or two of the teeth should be, because this is a piece of dentistry which the minister may find difficulty in understanding. We need, first, to put into force legislation giving the commission power to summon anyone before it to justify increases in the prices of goods and services. The price of services is extremely important. There should be statutory provision to obtain information not only from producers but from service industries including medical people and other professional people, the cost of whose services have gone up especially of late, accounting for a marked increase in the cost of living generally.
All increases should be included among the subjects of inquiry. Dividends, rents and profits should come within the purview of this commission. The minister himself has told us it is no secret that there is a conflict between the interest of consumers and the interest of producers. Instead of merely keeping the ring, this commission ought to recognize that the interest of the public is superior to any other interest in this connection.
In conclusion, the people will expect this commission to be given statutory power to bring about a meaningful relation between prices and incomes in this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. So that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway may not think I have discriminated against her, I will also ask the hon. member for Abitibi to bear in mind that statements ought to be as brief as possible.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, the speech made by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) is not new, since it is only a repetition of what he said yesterday to the ministers of finance who
December 20, 1968

White Paper on Price Stability were meeting in Ottawa at the federal-provincial conference
I too would have prefered the hon. minister to make a statement where he tabled his white paper today. In fact, it is not really a present, but rather a worn-out book, since the white paper tabled this morning contains nothing that we do not know already. Many commission of inquiry, especially that of the Economic Council of Canada, recommended in their reports exactly what the hon. minister wants to do by establishing an independent commission.
I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the method suggested by the minister to determine the causes of our present problems can add anything to the conclusions of the previous inquiry commissions.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should consider the proposals previously made in this house in order to find real solutions, because there are some. We are facing problems and the minister has attempted yesterday to frighten the provincial finance ministers, but I do not think that he could do that to us. We know that there are problems of inflation and unemployment and the minister stated yesterday that he could not find any solution. Still, to set the financial system in order, the minister only has to consider the proposals made by the members opposite, especially the Ralliement Creditiste proposals.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I intend to be very brief in commenting on the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I would point out again that the white paper itself draws attention to the serious problem we face inasmuch as both unemployment and inflation exist at the same time. We highlight this problem, and are proposing policies which will enable us to understand it better and how to deal with it most effectively.
It is also noted in the white paper that in addition to the present cabinet committee a new, independent body, a prices and incomes commission, will be established together with a third element, a new committee of this house to be known as the standing committee on price stability, incomes and employment. If the Leader of the Opposition holds this parliament and its committees in such low regard as to refer to them as popguns I can understand why he is Leader of the Opposition and not Prime Minister. I have confidence in this institution and what its committees can do, and I think this new committee 
will be an effective instrument in helping create price stability.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, may I say I have difficulty in finding out exactly what that party stands for. I can only take it that the official position of the hon. member's party is as outlined in her private member's notice of motion No. 46-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister knows that the rule-if we can apply the rule as it exists to this debate-says that a reply made by an hon. member should not be of such a nature as to provoke debate. This is what the minister is doing now, and I think much might be gained by bringing this topsy-turvy debate to a turvy conclusion.


Stanley Ronald Basford: What I have announced this morning goes much further than the policy enunciated by the N.D.P. in motion No. 46.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, I appreciate the unanimous consent given to me this morning, but I hope this minister or other ministers will not be tempted to use this technique as a device which enables them to reply to members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: On that same point of order, Mr. Speaker, we may be tempted to do just that. When we table something without making a statement in order to shorten the proceedings, and spokesmen for opposition parties insist on getting consent to comment, we shall certainly continue to press for consent to make our own comments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
December 18, 1968-The President of the Privy Council:
That when the house adjourns at the conclusion of the sitting on Friday, December 20, 1968, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, January 14, 1969, at 2:30 p.m.; provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the house should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the house shall meet at the time
December 20, 1968
[Stage Direction]
stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Before putting this motion it might be helpful if I were to make a proposal with regard to the day's sitting. It has been suggested that it might be useful to recess the sitting for the purpose of enabling discussion to take place on certain arrangements with respect to the business of the house, and I suggest for the consideration of hon. members that after routine proceedings have been dealt with but before we continue the debate on government orders the house might recess this sitting, to be recalled at the instance of the Chair.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: That is perfectly agreeable. We had such an arrangement in mind, and probably for that reason the minister would be prepared to stand the particular motion which is in his name since the course of the discussion which is to take place might well affect the procedure in this house and the period of adjournment.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be quite prepared to have the motion stand provided it is understood that at a later stage in this sitting I might put the motion without having unanimous consent.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to support this suggestion. Indeed, it represents an agreement which has been arrived at. I hope I will be pardoned for seeking to clarify one little point. The President of the Privy Council said we would recess after routine proceedings. I believe the understanding was that we shall recess after we have had questions on the orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: After the question period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That being the case we think it is a good idea that the parties have further opportunity for discussion, and that the house leaders have an opportunity to confer in the hope that we might reach a settlement today that will be acceptable to all.
Business of the House Mr. Speaker: Hon. members have heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered. It is understood also that the President of the Privy Council shall be permitted to return to motions in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Paul Theodore Hellyer: the first reading of Bill No. S-19 (from the Senate), to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDIANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who was in the house to table a report, but perhaps he really was not supposed to be here today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will check.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since he is not here now I will ask the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to have the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur meet again with the people of the St. Regis reserve to seek a satisfactory agreement concerning their rights.
Now that the minister is in his place I will direct the question to him. Would he give the house an assurance that either he or the Minister without Portfolio from Port Arthur will meet promptly with the people of the St. Regis reserve to work out a satisfactory agreement with regard to their rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I received a delegation of the people of the St. Regis reserve this week on the eve of their demonstration. I assured them that I was giving attention to the problem, and I

December 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry immediately got in touch with the Department of National Revenue in order to find a solution to their problem. I talked to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) who is at the moment Acting Minister of National Revenue and I think that, in the next few days, we will find a solution acceptable to the Indians of the St. Regis reserve.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development what his two colleagues, the Postmaster General and the Minister of National Revenue, have to do with the fact that the Canadian government expropriated land from these people some 12 years ago and has not yet had the courtesy to try to reach an agreement. I should also like to ask the minister whether he would include that in the discussions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this question has already been discussed. These problems involve the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and a certain group of the St. Regis band. If the rights of this group are legitimate and if it intends to assert them, they can go before the courts which, I am sure, will bring in a favorable decision if these rights are valid.


Mr. Peters:: That is a fine way to protect the Indians.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether the Postmaster General is determining policy with regard to Indian affairs as well as external relations.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the honourable Postmaster General, is always ready to co-operate. I consulted him with regard to this matter because he was Acting Minister of National Revenue.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is he aware that today, right at this moment, there are in Ottawa some members of the Caughna-waga Indian reserve, and they will be joined later by people from the St. Regis reserve,

who desire a meeting with the minister to talk about the declaration yesterday by the mayor of Cornwall that he had annexed Cornwall Island and it was no longer an Indian reserve? Is the minister prepared to meet with these gentlemen?
TTranslation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any people having requested to see me, but in that case, I will gladly see them this afternoon if they wish. I may add that the decision to annex to the town of Cornwall part of the reserve of that area was taken by the provincial authorities of Ontario.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the white paper which he tabled today to be referred to any committee of parliament, or is it the intention of the government to set up the bodies indicated in it without such prior study by a committee?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention during the course of January and early February to consult further with the provincial premiers and with business and labour groups in the country. The government would then be in a position to act on the white paper and prepare an order in council establishing the commission. It will of course be necessary to establish the committee that is mentioned in the white paper, and the motion to establish the committee would be debatable in this house.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you
would permit me to state what I was trying to get at. Obviously, if it wishes the government can produce legislation to set up the commission, or it can have the policy indicated in the white paper studied by a committee of parliament. I should like to ask whether that possibility is definitely abandoned so that industry and labour will not be asked to appear before a committee of parliament in advance of the implementation by the government of the policy indicated in the white paper.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is my intention to consult with industry and labour.
December 20, 1968


David Lewis: Could the minister inform the house in that case whether he has given consideration to the personnel of the proposed commission and, if so, who that personnel might be.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have given consideration to it, but the government has arrived at no final conclusions. The hon. member will notice that paragraph 62 really is a want ad, in which I am appealing to people of ability to be prepared to come forward and serve on the commission or on its research staff.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of his recent consultations with the minister of agriculture from Saskatchewan and officials of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool can the minister report on any recent developments in respect of the damp grain problem in western Canada.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I had some very useful discussions with officials of the Saskatchewan wheat pool and two ministers from the Saskatchewan government yesterday and this morning. In addition to what has been done by way of increasing cash advances, thereby making money available to the farmers to do their drying, we are considering other ways that might be helpful in making sure that no one will be denied the financial capability of having his grain dried if he chooses to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the representations made in a letter, among others, from the Saskatchewan wheat pool, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the government will give immediate consideration to assistance to producers by way of a direct grant for drying farm stored grain, in view of the fact that there is an emergent situation which the minister recognizes. Would this recommendation not be of considerable help, and will the government accept this recommendation which seems to be so feasible and reasonable?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The government has already taken several steps to be helpful in this situation. All I can do is repeat that it is the government's intention to take whatever additional steps may be needed to be helpful so
Inquiries of the Ministry that no one will be denied the financial resources to dry his grain if he chooses to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister answer a simple question? Is the government giving consideration to making direct grants to cover the cash costs of drying farm stored grain? That is what the farmers want to know. They don't want generalities.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, members of the government have considered all of the alternative proposals that have been advanced and when we are ready to make an announcement that will be done.


John George Diefenbaker: That was said two months ago.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the Canadian Wheat Board investigating the possibility of securing the use of drying facilities at Duluth, Minnesota, to assist in relieving the tough and damp grain situation?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I remember that they looked at that possibility a few weeks ago but, if I recall correctly, there were also some difficulties.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was asked a question about the possibility of using ships on the great lakes to store grain during the winter. I am happy to report that arrangements have been made for five vessels to store grain at the lakehead. They will store about 3.4 million bushels. This is the largest quantity of grain ever stored in this manner and represents the maximum quantity having regard to availability of berths and the safety of vessels.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the wheat board in fact is endeavouring to secure permission to use the drying facilities at Duluth which can process approximately three million bushels per month?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will have to check into more recent attempts which might have been made in this regard and I will report to the hon. member personally due to obvious circumstances.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary-question to the Minister of Industry, Trade

December 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry and Commerce. Is it not correct that over six million bushels were stored in freighters at the lakehead last winter, and can he advise why an equivalent or larger amount could not be stored in this manner this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the question as asked by the hon. member is argumentative.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary
question is also directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the disparity between the supply of box cars provided by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. in southern Saskatchewan. I understand a report has been made that in the northern portion, serviced by the C.P.R., it has been possible to get rid of one and two bushel quotas while the same does not apply to those points serviced by the C.N.R. in southern Saskatchewan. Will the minister investigate the reason for this disparity?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will investigate, but this may be part of the general problem of transportation that I have mentioned a number of times in the house. For example, recently we have had ships waiting to load at Vancouver. The reason for this involved unloading difficulties in that port. Measures have been taken to correct the situation. Now that the lakehead is going to be closed soon transportation of dry grain is being orientated toward Vancouver. My department keeps in touch with these problems in co-operation with the wheat board which is trying to synchronize the movement of box cars in the most efficient possible way.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. During the holiday season will he discuss the matter of box cars with the railroads and the wheat board in view of the urgent necessity of getting as many Canadian railroad cars back from the United States as is possible?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will do that, Mr. Speaker. Another announcement I could make is that the Minister of Labour has now waived the application of the Labour Code in order to make it possible to dry grain on a seven day a week, 24-hour day basis at the lakehead.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a related question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister say whether arrangements have been made for (him to meet with officials of the grain trade

and of the government of the province of Manitoba in a meeting of the same kind as he had with the Saskatchewan people?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. To date there has been no request for such a meeting but I understand that officials of the Board of Grain Commissioners and of the Canadian Wheat Board have had many meetings up to this time. If such a request for a meeting comes forward it will certainly be given every consideration.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether the Board of Grain Commissioners or his department have concluded their investigation and will they be permitting the grain companies to instal drying equipment at selected country elevator points?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I understand there have been one or two such applications, perhaps not directly, to instal such equipment in these elevators but in conjunction with the operation of these elevators. I would have to get a report in order to be precise on whether they have been approved and, indeed, how many are involved.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister is reported to have said recently on television that he had met his problems and solved them. Will he now advise the house of his solution for the increasing lack of confidence in government bonds evidenced in the short term money market where the rate for three months is 6.1 per cent and 6.3 per cent on money bills?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: They have been listening to you.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I quite agree with the minister but would he advise the house whether one of his solutions was to agree to an increase in the bank rate, or was this action taken independently by the Bank of Canada to counter government actions in other sectors of the economy?
December 20, 1968


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the decision to raise the bank rate was, of course, made by the governor of the Bank of Canada. Before he made his announcement he consulted with me and I agreed in principle with what he was doing. The great thing we have to fight in Canada today is inflation. This is one way of doing it. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, the bank rate in the United States was raised on the same day, which necessitated an increase in the Canadian rate.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hast-ings):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if the action taken with regard to the bank rate was taken solely at the instigation of the governor of the Bank of Canada why was it that the minister cited it so proudly as a government action to fight inflation in his answer to my question the other day?


Edgar John Benson: You ought to listen-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It has to do with the investigation of the publication of alleged parts of the report of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Will the government ensure that the principle of the confidential nature of journalistic sources is protected during the rest of the current investigation?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The confidential nature of what?


Mr. Fairweather:: Of sources journalists have for gathering information. It is a well known principle.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary South.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I have an answer to my question?



TASK FORCE TO STUDY NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister confirm recent press reports that a task force has been or is to be created to study northern oil development?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, I can confirm that, Mr. Speaker. The core of the task force consists of the deputy minister of energy, mines and resources, the chairman of the National Energy Board, and the deputy minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a governmental task force and its purpose will be to bring together all information on the existing oil situation in the north, on transportation routes that might be used, and to co-ordinate all available information, from all federal agencies and departments, and then report and make proposals to the government.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: As a supplementary question, has Canada been asked to participate with the United States in a study on the means of transporting oil from the Arctic to market?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No formal requests have been made to this effect but informal consultation has taken place between members of the federal administration and the companies involved. If we should receive a formal request we would be pleased to co-operate.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister has now accepted the suggestion which we on this side of the house have made for several weeks to set up this study, will the study group be looking into the question of setting out or trying to arrange a new oil policy by agreement and discussion with the United States? Further, after the task force has completed its work will the minister accept our suggestion that a group of members of parliament and senators representing all parties go to Washington to discuss the matter and make an arrangement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: To answer the last question first, Mr. Speaker, this would be the worst possible thing to do, but this is only a personal opinion. I have read the recommendations made by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada. Their recommendations are based on a number of assumptions. The north may be the greatest place for oil in the world. It may revolutionize distribution and marketing in North America. This is the kind of assumption we are going to check.
December 20, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry SHIPPING



EXPERIMENTS WITH NEW ICEBREAKING EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the importance of transportation in this regard, would the government consider supplying some financial assistance in the planned use of the Alexbow on a voyage into the port of Churchill this winter?



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the economic problems facing the fishing industry and the fishermen, has the government considered removing the charges levied for boats tying up at government wharves?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this question has been considered on many occasions. The responsible minister has made representations on behalf of the fishing industry. It is very difficult to arrive at a policy that is universal in its application and at the same time provides encouragement to those engaged in this industry. But I can assure the hon. member that we have an open mind on the subject and will continue to review it.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. On October 30 my notice of motion No. 12, regarding the production of papers in relation to the federal-provincial development of Roberts Bank port-related rail links, was agreed to by the house. Since we have heard a great deal about efficiency here recently, I wonder when these papers will be delivered to me.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I say this without having seen the confirmation, but I understand they are ready. The member of the staff directly involved has had the flu for the last couple of days. I hope there will be no further delay in making them available to my hon. friend.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does this apply to my motion No. 17 too?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, while we are in this field. Could the Minister of Transport report on the status of the report on jurisdiction at Roberts Bank? On December 6 the minister said it would be tabled not later than the following week. I refer to the report on which government, federal or provincial, has jurisdiction in regard to the Roberts Bank development.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend referring to the opinion that was sought at that time? If that is the case, it is now ready.
I refer to the opinion asked of the deputy attorney general.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question of December 6 was directed specifically to the report defining the division of jurisdiction between the two governments. I asked whether the minister could table the report and he replied that he had it and it would be tabled the following week. I am not sure whether it is the opinion or the report defining jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial governments with regard to Roberts Bank. If it is ready, could it be tabled so that we can read it during the Christmas recess, if we have one?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I join my hon. friend in being a bit at a loss, because there is no report that I know of. I am afraid there may have been a little misunderstanding. The only thing that comes close to that is an opinion asked of the deputy attorney general. I would be glad to inquire into the subject and discuss it with my hon. friend.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Regardless of what it is, Mr. Speaker, the minister agreed on December 6 to table it. I wonder whether he is prepared to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether there might be an understanding between the minister and the hon. member as to what it is that should be tabled.


Mark Willson Rose: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with interest to this exchange. What is lacking in both the answer given to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley and the answer given to me is specifically when. Could the minister enlighten us in this respect?
December 20, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There also
appears to be difficulty about what.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: While the matter is being considered by all concerned, we might go on to another matter.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order relates to a question asked by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley of the Minister of Transport in connection with the tabling of a report. Some confusion arose, including confusion in the mind of the Chair, as to what was being requested when the minister replied that he had no such report. I refer to the fact that on December 6, in answer to a question from the same hon. member, the minister said that this report had been received and would be tabled not later than the following week.
Further, in order to clear up the minister's confusion-perhaps his confusion could be better cleared up by more frequent attendance and by better attention to his work here in the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: I should like to call the attention of the minister to the actual report to which the hon. member was referring. On October 16, 1968 the minister stated, as reported on page 1211 of Hansard:
-we in the department have undertaken studies-
That was in connection with port jurisdiction. He went on to say that he expected the report would be ready for consideration by the end of November. We all realize that when members ask questions in the house they are not necessarily entitled to answers. However, when information is given by any minister with regard to a report, or in connection with any other request, at least he should have the ability to keep himself informed as to what is going on in his department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the mystery is now cleared up and I want to thank the hon. member for looking up these references for me. I tabled this report earlier today.


Donald MacInnis: Now that the minister has found his feet and has said that he tabled this report, he only emphasizes the fact that he does not know what is going on.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



SHIPMENT OF MINK AND NUTRIA TO RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of trade and commerce. Can the minister say whether Canadian mink and nutria farms have any trading arrangements with the Soviet union, and can he confirm whether a large Christmas shipment of live mink and nutria destined for the Soviet union was loaded aboard a Soviet air liner last night at Toronto international airport under what is alleged to have been a very tight security guard?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that this shipment took place. I cannot see at the moment what is wrong about it. This is regular trade. I am sure my hon. friend agrees with that. I am checking to see whether there was something irregular in the way the minks were treated or something of that kind that would be offensive to ethics.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister state whether he is taking immediate steps to implement the recommendations of the first report of the Barber commission on farm machinery safety?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker. As I answered yesterday, I believe it was, we at least need some time to study the report. I do not think it is right to call it a report of the commission; I think it was one of the study papers that was released.


Paul Yewchuk: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This first report was published because the recommendations were of some urgency in view of many farm deaths which have occurred owing to a lack of safety features in farm machinery. For this reason immediate steps are necessary in this respect. Does the minister agree with this?

December 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



ORGANIZATION OF CONTAINER TRAFFIC IN ATLANTIC PORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In keeping with the loveable holiday mood, I sent him a carefully worded notice of the question. Because of the serious impact of containerization on eastern Canadian ports and the lack of government responsibility in this regard, can the minister give us an up to date report on the matter before the recess? Can he tell us what progress has been made within his sphere of responsibility?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I understand that some time today it is likely that Clarke Traffic Services and/or the National Harbours Board will be making an announcement with respect to this question. The harbours board has been scrupulously careful in offering to Clarke Traffic	Services equality	of treatment
between the two ports of Saint John and Halifax. It was therefore left up to the company itself to choose between them on the basis of other considerations outside of the actual provision of the dock facilities themselves.
I must say that at this moment I do not know which one of these two ports the company has decided to use, but I imagine they will have that decision in their announcement when it is made. All I can say is that the harbours board has co-operated in making facilities available at either port and is quite prepared to provide additional facilities in the years ahead as required.


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Darfmouth-Halifax Easi):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with regard to two points in these negotiations. First, were exclusive rights given for the container facilities either at Halifax or Saint John and, second, has the minister's department or the National Harbours Board had inquiries from any other consortium or syndicate with shipping interests in the north Atlantic about the use of container facilities in these two ports or from groups other than Clarke Traffic Services Ltd?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand the new terminal will be a public one and available to other steamship lines irrespective of which port is chosen. In answer to the second question, I imagine there have been general inquiries

made but none as precise or as serious as this one-in other words, none which got to the stage of actual negotiations with a contract in view.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the Minister of Transport to disclose anything but can he tell the house whether Clarke Traffic Services Ltd. has been able to make a decision with regard to either port?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I understand they have made a decision but have been pretty careful not to tell anybody what it is, at least until this morning. In speaking to the National Harbours Board early this morning I was informed by them merely that they expected to reach some agreement today on the basis of the port which has been chosen by the Clarke company and that a release would be made immediately thereafter.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister of Transport to ensure that the next phase of the south end pier development in Halifax, on which tenders closed a few weeks ago, will be processed as rapidly as possible?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, as quickly as it would seem advisable under the circumstances.


J. Michael Forrestall: I have a final supplementary question for the minister. In view of the disappointment which may come to either my hon. friend from Saint John or myself, is the minister now able to assure as that the decision will in no way interfere with the plans of the National Harbours Board or the Department of Transport to proceed with the construction of container facilities at both ports?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think there would be sufficient traffic to justify the acquisition of a crane at both ports at this time. Therefore it would seem reasonable to provide the facilities where they are immediately required. As I indicated a moment or two ago, if and when there is sufficient traffic to justify additional facilities at either or both ports the National Harbours Board will be in a position to provide them.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarih (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
December 20, 19G8



Minister of Fisheries. In view of the announcement today by the United States government that the use of the trade name "Greenland halibut" will henceforth be prohibited in the United States, what immediate action does the Canadian government propose to take in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the question, of course, but I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members my opinion that a number of questions asked today might normally have been placed on the order paper. However, this is not suggested to hon. members because of the recess which may come to us later today or at some time.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that the government will shortly be issuing an order requiring the Canadian fish processing and packaging plants to label this species of fish "Greenland turbot". The main reason for this is that over 90 per cent of the production does go to the United States and the decision handed down today, to be made effective 90 days from now, dictates the trade name to be used in sales there.



HOCKEY-EUROPEAN TOUR BY VICTORIAVILLE TIGERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right honourable Prime Minister and even if I am out of order, I should like to take a minute of the question period to point out the fact that we have the privilege-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat.
I must remind him that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period and that the minute he is taking is a minute that he takes away from his colleagues who might have important questions to ask.


André-Gilles Fortin: Then, Mr. Speaker, I am asking my question immediately.
Is the right hon. Prime Minister aware that we have the honour of receiving a Canadian hockey team, the "Tigers" of Victoriaville, who won the Allan cup for 1967-68, and who will be going to Europe soon, that is on December 25, to represent Canada.
I wonder if the right hon. Prime Minister is aware of this and if he intends to send them
Inquiries of the Ministry his best wishes in their endeavour to bring back the senior world hockey cup, that is the "Bunny Ahearne Trophy"?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I hardly understand that question, but I shall read it in Hansard and take any action deemed necessary.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the hard-pressed Minister of Transport this morning. I listened with interest to the announcement by the minister today relative to his department's plans for the development of new airport facilities in Toronto. In view of the noise factor created by new and larger aircraft, what steps is the minister taking to restrict housing developments adjacent to other existing Canadian airports, for example, the one which serves this very city of Ottawa?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those large problems which involve several jurisdictions of government. The zoning of land in the ordinary sense is within the jurisdictions of the provincial and municipal governments. We are therefore having conversations with them to see what kind of co-operation is possible to protect the future viability of our existing airports. This is precisely the problem that we have just been talking about and discussing in respect of the Toronto international airport. It will require either a considerable degree of co-operation on the part of municipal and provincial governments to protect existing airports or some change in policy on the part of the federal government which would involve the accumulation of much larger areas of land and some land management in respect thereto.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. It was announced today that the interest rate on N.H.A. mortgage is going to reach an all-time high of 9.25 per cent. I wonder whether the minister
422S

December 20, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry would consider taking immediate action in that regard before his task force reports?
Kon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, although it will probably bring big red headlines when the announcement is made, it should be recalled that this is a statutory limitation and there is no requirement for lenders to charge that much money for N.H.A. mortgages. Indeed, at the present time they are making loans below the limit. I personally believe that the present rate is a sustainable one and I hope there will be no increase in the effective rate to borrowers, notwithstanding the increase in the ceiling.


John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister seriously suggesting that the government is in no position to do anything about it but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question with an international flavour for the minister in charge of communications. Can he advise whether anyone in his department concerned with planning for domestic satellites was given the opportunity of on-site observation of the launching of the latest "intelsat" satellite in the United States, and to what extent such an opportunity was utilized?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I have no particular information on that but I will get it.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Could the minister advise the house whether arrangements have been completed to grant a holiday to the public service on Boxing day?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is yes, and an announcement has been made. Boxing day will be a holiday generally for all those in the public service other than members of bargaining units which have not sought nor secured in their agreements to have Boxing day as a holiday.
[Mr. Broadbent.l



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the forthcoming hearings involving the Polish seamen now in Halifax, has the government communicated to the immigration appeal board its policy concerning Canadian asylum for people from communist countries?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, the board is empowered under the law to deal with this matter. I think it would be an unwarranted interference for me or any member of the government to communicate with them on this point.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If it is government policy, and we have been told by the present and former Prime Ministers that it is, surely this statement should be before the board to help it in its decisions. This is what I was asking of the minister, not to interfere but to place that general statement before the board.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether his representative before the immigration appeal board will take government policy into consideration?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I give my hon. friend that assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: There are just a few seconds remaining in the question period, and perhaps the hon. member might allow two or three quick questions.


J. Michael Forrestall: The lives of nine men are fairly important too, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, I will pass it along.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of
December 20, 1983	COMMONS
Finance. Is he in a position today to reply to the question I posed to him yesterday and of which he took notice?


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in that position. As the house knows, the minister was involved throughout yesterday with the federal-provincial finance ministers' conference. He has been here earlier today but I have not yet had an opportunity to consult with him. However, I will pursue the matter for my hon. friend.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask what I consider to be a rather urgent question of the minister who is replacing the Solicitor General who is in charge of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Is he aware that attempts may be made later today, if one has not already been made, as a mark of protest by a group which has a substantial complaint against government action, to snuff out the centennial flame on parliament hill? Are any protective measures being taken?
[Translation1



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to put my question to the Minister of Finance, but since he has just left the house I will put it to his parliamentary secretary.
As the result of the failure of the federal-provincial conference of the Ministers of Finance, can we be assured that Quebec will receive the equivalent, in dollars, to the tons of wheat which have just been rejected by the Ivory Coast?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to an order made by the house earlier this day I now leave the Chair to resume at the call of the bells.



SITTING SUSPENDED

[Stage Direction]
At 12.40 p.m. the sitting of the house was suspended during pleasure.
DEBATES	4227
Statement on House Leaders' Meeting SITTING RESUMED
The house resumed at 4.45 p.m.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether I could have leave of the house to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house on the outcome of the very helpful discussions that have taken place among the representatives of the parties. The course of action that we should like to suggest to the house is that the proposed 16-A provisions be deleted from the fourth report of the special committee, and that thereafter the house be asked to decide today whether or not to adopt the remaining sections of that report, and then the consequential fifth report of the special committee on procedure. We believe that this would meet with approval in all quarters of the house.
To achieve these results I understand that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is prepared to agree to the withdrawal of his motion for an amendment to the motion for concurrence in the fourth report. A new amendment would then be offered excluding the proposed standing order 16-A from the motion for concurrence. The question on this amendment and on the main motion would be decided today by the house. If the main motion on the fourth report is carried, concurrence in the fifth report would be moved. We have also agreed on the text of a motion to refer the question of the allocation of time to the new standing committee on procedure and organization, and that motion will be put forward for decision today.
The recommendations of the fourth and fifth reports, if adopted by the house, will make major changes in the way this house deals with the business of supply and the examination of public bills. During the course of the debate considerable uneasiness was expressed in various quarters about the suitability of our standing committee system as it now exists to perform the heavy tasks to be assigned to it.
December 20, 1968

Statement on House Leaders' Meeting
For this reason, it has been agreed that after the new standing committee on procedure and organization has been established, in addition to its general reference and the directive to review generally the effects of the various procedural changes, that committee will be given a specific direction to keep under close observation the operation of the standing committees.
The focus of this observation will be concentrated on four points. The first of these will be the way the standing committees are studying the estimates. The second will be the possibility of making the position of standing committee chairmen somewhat more comparable to that of the chairman of the committees of the whole house. The third will be the matter of ministerial attendance at the meetings of the standing committees. The fourth point will be the need to make available stronger and more extensive support facilities of various kinds to the standing committees. As I said, a motion embodying that instruction will be made when the new standing committee on procedure and organization has been established.
Before taking my seat perhaps I can say a few words of appreciation to members on all sides of the house, particularly to my colleagues the house leaders. I think it can be agreed that we are now engaged in an historic change in the rules of the house, but that in the process we have had an historic debate on the subject. I think it can also be agreed generally that the debate has brought forward with greater clarity the principal issues in our parliamentary system.
Equally I do not think there can be any doubt that the result of our deliberations and the strenuous opinions that were shared across the floor will in the long run make for a better and more effective system. Therefore I should like to express my thanks to all hon. members, and especially to those with whom I have had the privilege of conducting these discussions.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to take the time of the house to make two or three points. If I make them rather firmly it is not from the point of view of being combative but simply from the point of view of making certain that we are removing any possible misunderstanding.
First of all, I would make it very clear that, as I understand it, rule 16-A is not being referred back to committee under the
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
conditions outlined by the Minister of Manpower yesterday, but rather under very much broader terms of consideration. Yesterday the Minister of Manpower indicated that the government would be prepared to give instructions to the committee to consider the proposal made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), which was to take a look at the British system. "We shall give it that kind of latitude," said the minister.
I want to make it very clear that this rule is being sent back to the committee under much broader bounds of latitude than that, including instructions to the committee, among other things, to consider suggestions I made in the course of the debate. I want to make it perfectly clear that we are not agreeing to this section of the report going back to committee within the bounds of latitude outlined by the Minister of Manpower, but rather under the much broader bounds of latitude set out in the motion that the house leader of the government will, I presume, present in due course.
Secondly, we have opposed the power sought by the government party in the house under proposed rule 16-A, and we believe that the country has rejected it as unnecessary and improper. We have accepted in a spirit of co-operation the other rules put forward, though we did have considerable reservations about a number of them, in order to try to make this parliament work more effectively.
Although I do not believe that this would happen, if the special committee, dominated as it must be by a majority of government supporters in the house-and I repeat, I am not suggesting that this will happen-were to bring back a recommendation which was something like 16-A, then we would regard this majority of the house-and I say this very frankly-as being guilty of bad faith. Let there be no mistake about the vigour with which we in this party would react to any such proposal.
I do not say that to be provocative; I say it simply so that there is no misunderstanding. If the rules are to work, they must work through co-operation and good faith. We believe we have given ample evidence of our desire to co-operate, and have shown our good faith in accepting the other rules proposed to the house, despite our considerable reservations. We, and I think the country, sir, will judge the good faith of the government in its desire to co-operate by the manner in which the special committee will now
December 20, 1S68
COMMONS DEBATES	4229
respond to the debate that has taken place in the house when that committee gets down to consider its business. The undertaking of a project such as we are considering in a parliament like this is never easy.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
May I take this occasion to express my thanks to my colleagues in my own party for their understanding and patience. I wish to thank especially the members in my party who served on the special standing committee that brought forth these recommendations. If I may say so, I should like to express my particular appreciation to my house leader, who has borne a very heavy responsibility and burden in this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am happy on behalf of this party to confirm the understanding that has been indicated this afternoon by the government house leader. We might almost say that the notes from which he read represent an agreed communique which came out of the last meeting of the house leaders. I should also like to join with both hon. members who have preceded me in drawing attention-and I do not think we err in doing this sort of thing too often-to the value of parliamentary debate, which has been proven once again during these past two weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think I may be forgiven for saying that it is a good thing this debate was not conducted under the limitations of the proposed rule 16-A. If it had, it would have been settled long ago and in an unsatisfactory manner. On the other hand, as a result of free debate in this house, of free negotiations among the representatives of the parties and free discussions within party caucuses, we have arrived at a settlement which I believe will be satisfactory to all and will be good for parliament as a whole.
As everyone knows, two main issues concerned us in the debate of the past two weeks. One of them was of supreme importance to all of us, though the other was also an important issue. Those two issues were the proposed standing order 16-A and the matter of the handling of estimates by parliament. With regard to the proposed rule 16-A, the solution that has been arrived at I believe is crystal clear and I appreciate the way in which the Leader of the Opposition has underlined it. Maybe we are talking about a
Statement on House Leaders' Meeting difference in terminology, but there is meaning to the words we choose. We are not just referring back the proposed rule 16-A out of this report to an old committee. Rather, we are expunging rule 16-A from the fourth report. That rule is finished. Later there will be a motion to refer to the incoming committee on procedure and organization on the subject of the allocation of the time of the house. Certain guide lines will be agreed upon for that committee and they will be broad enough, I am sure, to permit that kind of free negotiation and free discussion which the Leader of the Opposition said would be essential. I can assure all members of the house that when that new committee is established the representative of this party will insist that the discussions and negotiations be free, that there be no attempt to bring back the old proposed rule 16-A that was expunged, and that any recommendation brought back is one that can be agreed upon by all parties in this House of Commons.
We are glad to have achieved this resolution of the problem created by proposed rule 16-A. It was obnoxious for many of us; it was looked upon with disfavour by a large section of the press and other media as well as by the public, and I think parliament has done itself proud to solve the matter in this way. Since it is almost Christmas and since congratulations are being handed around perhaps I may be pardoned for saying that we might even congratulate the government on being willing to take the otherwise unpleasant steps which were necessary so that this agreement could be arrived at.
The other point, Mr. Speaker, was the question of supply. While we, in this party, did not put as much emphasis on that question as we did on the question of rule 16-A, we grew more uneasy about it as time went on. The proposal that is now being made is that we should put into operation the new proposals regarding supply, send the estimates to standing committee, and so on. We have agreed that any review that might take place with regard to that process should not be left until we sit next session, but should be a current review, beginning early in 1969. The government house leader has pointed out that this review will take into account such things as ministerial attendance, the facilities that are available, the job done by the chairmen, and so on.


An hon. Member:: And the staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
think that this kind of review of the processes
4230	COMMONS
Statement on House Leaders' Meeting of this place is very necessary, and good for the Canadian people and for the members of parliament.
I may say that there are one or two things in the fourth report and one or two things in the fifth report that did concern me. If debate had gone on we would have raised those matters on the floor of the house. I will not mention them now, but will simply say that, now we have been given this guarantee of a review, I feel sure that, if there are things that do not work out as we had hoped they would, we shall have a chance to bring them up, either here or in committee, and perhaps have them acted on.
All told, this has been a good two weeks in the life of parliament and I think we have come to a good resolution of the difficulty. I believe we will be able to begin our work in 1969 with a set of rules that will be helpful to us. I should like to join with others who have spoken in thanking those who have helped us.
I appreciate particularly the support and tremendous interest of all members of this party in this whole problem. It has been a pleasure to work with the other house leaders and the members of the committee. It was not always easy to say that. There were one or two nights when it was no pleasure at all. Now that we have resolved the difficulty in a parliamentary fashion it is a pleasure for me to join with others in expressing this work of approval of what we have now accomplished.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in my name and on behalf of my colleagues, I am very happy to assure the house that we accept the proposals made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) about the withdrawal of rule 16A, and we believe that the discussions that took place gave very good results.
We all agree that our procedure must be changed and we believe that all hon. members who took part in the debate these last few days gave their best in order to attain the goal we were all seeking, the streamlining of our parliamentary procedure.
I would also like to congratulate all the members of the committee on procedure, who held 26 sittings, for the wonderful work they did. I hope that the task with which they will be entrusted this afternoon will be carried out satisfactorily and that their work will be as fruitful as anything done until now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

DEBATES	December 20, 1963



MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE- WITHDRAWAL OF AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, December 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Blair that the fourth report of the special committee on procedure of the house, presented to the house on Friday, December 6, be concurred in, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Stanfield (p. 3762).
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the house to withdraw my amendment to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Amendment (Mr. Stanfield) withdrawn.



AMENDMENT DELETING FROM MOTION PROVISION RESPECTING RULE 16-A

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting therein alter the words "Procedure of the House", the words "except the proposal with respect to the proposed Standing Order 16-A."


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the amendment carry? Amendment agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion as amended carry?
Motion as amended agreed to.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Might we have the consent of the house to revert to routine proceedings so that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) can move a motion with respect to the fifth report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN FIFTH REPORT Mr. D. Gordon Blair (Grenville-Carleton): I
have pleasure in moving:
That the fifth report of the standing committee on procedures of the house presented to the house on Friday, December 6, 1968, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 20. 1968

Donald Stovel Macdonald: As I indicated in the statement I made on motions, there has been agreement in the house with respect to the reference of the question of the allocation of time to the standing committee on procedure and organization which we just established under the terms of the fifth report.
I would confirm, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested, that the statement which I made was the agreed statement, and equally that the following proposed motion is also the agreed motion. I must say I did not hear all the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I would simply confirm that my understanding of the agreement is as stated in both this motion and in my statement. I take it there is no doubt about the fact that these two documents comprise the agreement between both sides of the house.
On this basis, I move:
That the standing committee on procedure and organization be instructed, and hereby is instructed, to consider and to propose ways to allocate time to the legislative business of the house and to include in its report or reports a draft of a proposed standing order drawn to give effect, if adopted by the house, to the proposal of the committee; and for greater certainty but not to restrict the generality of the foregoing, the committee is instructed to consider the British rules and practice for the allocation of time, the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition on December 10, 1968, the suggestions made by the Minister of Agriculture on December 13, 1968, and other proposals and suggestions made in the debate on the motion for concurrence in the fourth report of the special committee on procedure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps by way of explanation of my rising at this point I should indicate that in accordance with the report we have just accepted certain resolutions on the order paper preceding the first reading of bills have been expunged from the order paper. I would therefore ask the unanimous consent of the house to go on to the Introduction of Bills stage of routine proceedings for the purpose of introducing certain bills in relation to certain resolutions now appearing as orders Nos. 9, 12, 17, 18, 19 and 20 on the order paper, all of which have been recommended to the house by His Excellency the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it so agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Proposed Legislation



FISHERIES IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-152, to amend the Veterans Land Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-155, to provide compensation for farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1968
Proposed Legislation ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT

Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: for leave to introduce Bill C-156, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Frank Howard: I wonder if I might rise on a point of order and ask what [DOT] happened to resolution No. 32 relating to the Indian Claims Commission? Surely, if the government considers it proper to deal with pesticides, the slaughter of animals and so on, it could deal with a number of other matters which are of more consequence.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to tell the house that, following consultations with various Indian groups, and in view of certain remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) during my appearance before the committee, we have referred the bill in question to the committee on health, welfare and social affairs, so that another amendment is made before its introduction in the house. I hope to be in a position to introduce this bill when the house reconvenes in January.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)



PEST CONTROL


Donald Stovel Macdonald: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-157, to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals.


An hon. Member:: Is that your caucus bill?
Anoiher hon. Member: That is for New
Year's Eve.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Notice of the introduction of this bill has not been given, but it might accommodate the house if the 
house would concur in this motion so that it could be printed for hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: That when the House adjourns at the conclusion of the sitting on Friday, December 20, 1968, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, January 14, 1969, at 2.30 p.m.; provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with Her Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of this order.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the spirit of this house is so good I am sure it is with a bit of nostalgia we will all be leaving, I hope, in a few minutes; but I do not wish that to happen until I have had an opportunity in the name of everyone present to wish each other and all of us a Merry Christmas, bonne et heureuse annee, et le paradis a la fin de vos jours.



LABOUR RELATIONS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, if I may, on a point of order, that I notice the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) in his seat and I know he has been occupied much of the day in connection with a dispute between NABET and the C.B.C. I wonder whether the minister could inform the house that the dispute has been properly settled, so that we can leave, in respect of that point, with the right Christmas spirit.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to add to the Christmas spirit by saying that five minutes ago both parties involved reached an agreement and have settled their differences. They will now be free to enjoy the festive season.
December 20, 1968	COMMONS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could add my good wishes to those of the Prime Minister and move that we adjourn this day's sitting.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I put the motion to the house perhaps I might be allowed to convey
DEBATES	4233
Settlement of C.B.C. Dispute to all hon. members a very earnest and enthusiastic invitation to attend the Christmas party given by the independent party caucus in room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 5.15 p.m.



Tuesday, January 14, 1969