1968-11-14

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House, Ottawa 14 November, 1968
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Gerald Fauteux, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th November, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant, Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Govenor General



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

[Stage Direction]
First report of special committee on statutory instruments-Mr. MacGuigan.
[Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: that the second report of the standing committee on labour, manpower and immigration, presented to the house on Tuesday, November 12, 1968, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the growing embarrassment to our representatives at NATO and to
members of parliament arising from the ambiguity of his government's position toward NATO and the resulting disrepute of this country, can the Prime Minister reconsider his position and give the house an assurance that the study of our external position will be completed by an early date, which he might indicate, to be followed promptly by a firm statement by the Prime Minister as to what our policy is?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the so-called growing embarrassment mentioned by the hon. gentleman, I should like to reassure him that this is not the case. Our position is as I described it in the house a few days ago. Of course when the review is completed I will want to make a statement about the government's policy in that area, but until that time has come the government will continue to assume the present position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the obvious refusal of the Prime Minister to give any firm commitment with regard to the time of completion of this study, would the Prime Minister indicate whether the study is being conducted simply within the governmental spheres or whether personnel outside the government service is being consulted in connection with it?


Mr. Trudeau:: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me answer once again the first part of the hon. gentleman's question in this way. It is not that I refuse to give assurance with regard to the date, but that such a date does not exist, and of course I am not in a position to say now when the study will be completed. We want it to be well and thoroughly done, and we realize that the sooner it is completed the better. I cannot give a date for reasons not under my control; we want this study to be as thorough as possible.
With regard to the second part of the question, I just want to say that the review is being done in a way which we find to be most compatible with a fresh and new look being given to this subject in the advice to the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is it really too much to ask the Prime Minister on a question
2720	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry as important as this one to give us an indication as to the scope of the review and the scope of the consultation in connection with the review?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in answering the hon. gentleman with regard to the scope of the review. It is very wide in scope; that is why it is taking some time. I believe I have indicated at another time in the house that it extends to our external policy both in Europe-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is the scope of the review.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about the scope of the consultation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The scope of the consultation is as wide as is the subject. The Department of External Affairs is itself engaged in this review with the help of all people necessary to ensure the best possible results. Most of the study is being done within the department, but the government is also turning to other sources of advice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a further supplementary question. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether the representatives of his government, the Canadian personnel at the NATO meeting, are giving any assurance to NATO countries with regard to the continuation of the stationing of the Canadian armed forces in Europe; and if any such assurance is being given, is the actual size of the forces to be maintained under NATO also indicated and for what if any length of time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the two ministers engaged in the Brussels talks now are telling our fellow members of NATO that we are engaged in this review; that at the present time we do not want to make any decisions which will prejudge the results. We are not envisaging now any drastic move forward or backward out of NATO until this review is completed. We are trying as much as possible to hold the line until the review is completed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on a question of such importance. Is it fair to assume from what the Prime Minister has said that the representatives of Canada at this council meeting will not in fact give any firm assurance with regard to the forces, as to quantity or as to time?

DEBATES	November 14, 1968


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, it depends what the hon. member intends by that type of assurance. We of course are not going to give any firm assurance in respect of increasing our commitments to NATO; neither are our representatives instructed to indicate we are going to pull out of NATO. I hope this answers the question.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he made a determination as to the accuracy of reports that our ambassador to NATO has denounced Canada's NATO policy as being vacillating?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not attempted to determine that. I take the position that in this particular government, policy is decided by the cabinet and not by the press.
Right Kon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): May I ask the Prime Minister, then, why he is getting this information outside of cabinet circles and outside the Department of External Affairs, and why he does not tell us who are these anonymities who give advice to the Canadian government about what it ought to do?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the policy decisions of this government are based on advice not only from civil servants but from all the areas which are available to us. This government is not taking the position that it must necessarily be guided only by what is decided by the civil servants. We are ministers who are responsible to the Canadian people and we are seeking advice from all possible sources.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I do not intend to embarrass the Prime Minister by pressing the question, but who are these incognitos who are being consulted about what Canada should do in connection with a policy that Canadians as a whole support?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would not be realistic to expect me to give the names of all the people who have given me advice over the past year. They would probably include the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to say is that if I were consulted I would advise carrying out Canada's responsibilities, which this government is not even doing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems hypothetical to me, Mr. Speaker.
November 14, 1968


Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has the Canadian ambassador to NATO submitted his resignation and, if so, has it been accepted?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
In view of the attitude of some American senators and the election of a new American president, can the minister tells us if his department has started procedures to get Hal Banks extradited, since the Americans seem more conciliatory and ready to send Hal Banks back to Canada to face the charges laid against him?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is the opinion of the law officers of the crown that proceedings for the extradition of Mr. Banks are spent, and that any attempt to reopen the case before the United States courts would not succeed.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister of Justice has said, would the minister discuss with the attorney general of the province of Ontario the steps to be taken to request the incoming administration in the United States and the new United States secretary of state to review the Hal Banks case, with a view to securing his extradition to this country? I am suggesting that the minister contact the proper authorities in Ontario-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -and have them contact the United States officials regarding a review.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have received no request from the province of Ontario to have the federal government attempt to reopen the case with the United States.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Is this government or this minister going to ask the attorney general of Ontario
Inquiries of the Ministry or the proper department in the United States to review this situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have just stated the opinion of the law officers of the crown, for the Attorney General of Canada, that the case could not be successfully reopened. As a principle of law I suggest to the hon. member, who is learned in the law, that a mere change in executive in the United States is not sufficient reason to place a man in double jeopardy before the courts. There has been a trial, and it has been concluded.


John George Diefenbaker: He never was in
jeopardy.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the Minister of Justice, in view of what his officers have said, request the legal officers in the United States and their department to see whether they would review the situation, in view of the fact that a change of administration is about to take place?


An hon. Member:: That was a political decision in the United States.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I heard the remark that that was a political decision of the United States. The case for Mr. Banks' extradition has been before the United States courts and the proceedings have been exhausted. Speaking legally, Mr. Speaker, I see no useful purpose in attempting to have the United States courts reopen the case. It is the opinion of the law officers of the crown that this would not be successful.
Mind you, Mr. Speaker, any dealings with the United States would have to be through diplomatic channels. I am speaking of the law as it is interpreted to me, namely that the extradition proceedings having been taken unsuccessfully before the United States courts those extradition proceedings are spent, and that the case could not be successfully reopened before the courts.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Would the minister not admit that the courts prepared an order so the extradition would have gone forward, but that it was reviewed by Secretary of State Dean Rusk-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am asking, Mr. Speaker, that that be reviewed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's additional supplementary is argumentative.
November 14, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



REPRESENTATIONS AS TO CANADIAN HOLDINGS OF U.S. FUNDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the house whether representations have been made by the government of Canada to the United States government to lift the ceiling of $2.6 billion in permitted holdings of United States exchange by the Canadian government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has been discussed, and it is a question of continuing discussion. I should indicate to the house that the ceiling figure is a target, not an absolute limit, a target that has been exceeded from time to time in the past and may be exceeded in the future. However, the matter is under discussion at the official level.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to advise whether an early decision in this matter is expected, or is the Canadian government to continue to be restricted further for many months to come?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the government is restricted by the present level of the ceiling. We are close to the ceiling now. We have exceeded it from time to time in the past, and that has neither caused any difficulties nor had any effect upon the monetary policies we follow in this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did I understand the minister to say that there is in fact no ceiling?


Edgar John Benson: That is not what I said at all, as my hon. friend would know that if he had been listening. I said the ceiling was a target which we have exceeded from time to time. Of course we have also gone well below it in Canada, in some circumstances. There will not be any great difficulty if, as has happened in the past, we run over the ceiling. I do not foresee any difficulties with the United States in this regard. I have said, however, that the whole matter is under discussion.


Mr. Baldwin:: You are always so optimistic.

INQUIRY AS TO FLOATING EXCHANGE RATE On the orders of the day:


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the government considering a revision of its monetary policy to provide for a floating exchange rate, as advocated recently by the chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada?
Kon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Will the minister make appropriate arrangements to authorize the standing committee on transport and communications to complete its visit to the maritime provinces for the hearings that were interrupted last year by the election?


Hon. Paul Kellyer (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should be quite happy to give any assistance to the committee that it is within my jurisdiction to give.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancaster):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister please see that this matter is hurried, because the briefs that were prepared for that visit are quickly becoming
obsolete.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I should like to help to expedite this matter, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Ncire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs or his parliamentary secretary. Is the minister aware of recent statements made by Biafran officials respecting the international observer team? One statement was made by Dr. Eke, the Biafran commissioner for information; who called the observer team a bunch of crooks and said they were not welcome in Biafra. Another statement was made by Colonel Ojukwu, in which he said the observer team would be welcome in Biafra.
November 14, 1968

Could the Minister clear up the apparent contradiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question in that form is acceptable. The hon. member is asking whether the minister is aware of certain statements, and I doubt whether a question in that form can be asked.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask if the minister had any direct information about the statements, and whether the government had any intention to widen the terms of reference for the observer team in Biafra.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the statement made by the information commissioner indicates clearly that the observer team is not welcome in rebel territory.
However, there was a report in this morning's papers to the effect that the rebel leader was inviting the observer team in his territory. We have no confirmation of those two statements but we hope that they will not prevent the continuation of our relief program for the Biafrans.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In answer to a question on October 23 the Prime Minister in effect said that the government intended to proceed to negotiations dealing with offshore mineral rights, and they expected soon to lay a proposition before the provinces. He also said the matter had been discussed in cabinet and that the cabinet were waiting for the appropriate time to proceed.
As three weeks have passed since that time I wonder whether the Prime Minister can make an announcement on this matter.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we have not announced the policy nor have we yet approached the provinces. I share the hon. member's concern, and I am hopeful that it will be done in the immediate future. Time does fly.
Inquiries of the Ministry VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received any representation regarding cutbacks in services to veterans at Camp Hill hospital at Halifax, Nova Scotia?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister investigate to determine whether services have been cut back at Camp Hill hospital and inform the house of the situation in this regard?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, services have not been cut back.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare may I direct an urgent question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious situation that has been created regarding the expansion of medical schools-and I refer to the situation created by the announcement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that there is to be an annual limitation on the amount of grants made out of the health resources fund-will the Prime Minister have the matter checked in the light of the Health Resources Fund Act to see whether the minister has the authority to impose this freeze?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would mind asking this question on a day when the minister is supposed to be in the house.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, knowing his close relationship with the universities. In view of the acute shortage of doctors and the startling statement that medical schools will be unable to admit more students unless medical research is expanded,
November 14, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry will the minister assure the house that everything possible will be done to prevent the impending freeze of capital funds?


Edgar John Benson: The hon. gentleman is probably thinking about the health resources fund, for which the minister of health will answer when he is in the house. I should, however, draw the attention of the house to the great increase in the amount of funds provided for medical research since this government took office. It has been going up at the rate of 33J per cent, compounded annually.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I should like to tell the minister that it was his government which brought in medicare, resulting in this great need for doctors.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question, since this question relates partly to the subject about which I directed a question to the Prime Minister a few minutes ago. In view of the urgency of this matter will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance take it under advisement and give us an answer tomorrow, since the Minister of National Health and Welfare may not be here until Monday, as to whether there is authority under the act as it now reads for this freeze to be implemented?


Edgar John Benson: I believe this question, which the hon. gentleman addresses to me so urgently at this time, was answered by the then minister of national health and welfare a year ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
answered it the other way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell us whether the continuing committee of federal-provincial fiscal advisers, on which the minister is represented, was sent a report last September by officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare stating that the total cost of medicare in its first year was to be projected at $953 million for both levels of government? If so, how does the minister reconcile such a projection with the budgetary estimates of $335 million for the federal government? After all, there is a gap of $118 million.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether this question is in order, as asked.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry; I did not hear your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It was a doubtful ruling. I said I had some doubt as to whether the question as asked was in order.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether he would make public for the enlightenment of native Indian people attending consultations and conferences the draft legislation relating to the Indian Act. The minister replied that no such draft document existed in the department. I should like to ask him now what happened to the draft amendments to the Indian Act which the former minister said did exist as of December 11, last year. Has this document been destroyed, or hidden away, or is it just waiting to be resurrected?


Hon. Robert Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Neither I nor the minister of Indian affairs is aware of the existence of this document, but I will bring the hon. member's comments to the attention of the minister on his return.


Frank Howard: I wonder whether, in the style of the Minister of Finance, I could draw attention to the fact that the reference is to be found in Hansard of December 11, 1967 at page 5264.



JAPAN-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE STEEL EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to put this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but since he is not here, I shall direct it to the right hon. the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that a trade agreement is on the point of being signed between Canada and Japan respecting hardware imports, could the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Canadian government has convinced the government of Japan to buy in return from Canada the steel necessary for the manufacturing of these products?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the question is in order and I believe that the hon. member should place it on the order paper.
November 14, 1968



WHEAT-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN EXPORTS TO JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: I had a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence I will direct it to the acting minister, or possibly to the Minister of Agriculture who might take it as notice. It relates to the recent startling announcement that Japan has developed a process capable of producing artificial meat from wheat, and is soon to commence producing 150 tons of synthetic meat per month. Can the minister say what action he or his department is taking to step up wheat sales to Japan in order to provide the raw material for this new product?


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



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: should like to address this question to the Minister of Transport, whom I welcome back to this house from the hazards of housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I believe the last time the minister spoke was on the day of Hallowe'en. My question arises from an announcement he made that day having to do with the Digby-Saint John ferry. What is the timetable proposed for the ferry ship, or the terminal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am pleased to be back. I had a most interesting trip to the Atlantic provinces this week.


An hon. Member:: How was the party in Yellowknife?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I visited my friends down there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am wondering
whether the minister wishes to return to motions.


An hon. Member:: He wants to return to Yellowknife.


George Harris Hees: Can the minister tell us about the party in Yellowknife?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would be very glad to do so. We certainly missed the hon. gentleman, who is noted for his enjoyment of parties.
With regard to the specific question which was asked, plans in connection with the Saint John-Digby Ferry are proceeding apace. There are some technical difficulties, as the hon. member is well aware because his sources are almost as good as mine. These difficulties, however, are not insurmountable by any means; they are just matters which have to be worked out among all the parties involved. A meeting will be held within days between government officials and representatives of the C.P.R. at which I hope additional progress can be made. I can assure the hon. member that no delay will be tolerated in getting ahead with this important ferry.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hope the ferry floats better than the housing. Has the government yet signed an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway concerning terminal facilities for the ferry at Saint John and Digby?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The question asked by the hon. member is not too precise, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is difficult to know exactly what he is driving at. If he means to ask whether the C.P.R. has agreed to pay wharfage, the answer is, not yet but hopefully soon.



PROPOSED FERRY SERVICE, YARMOUTH-NEW ENGLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Order, please.']
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: This is really a related question, Mr. Speaker. Is the federal government engaged in any co-operative negotiations with the provincial government of Nova Scotia, Lion Ferry or any United States interests with respect to establishing the proposed Yarmouth-New England ferry?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that this is a supplementary question, but the minister may wish to reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have allowed the hon. member's question, and I think we might now go on to another.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We have indicated to the province our willingness to negotiate with them to see what assistance we could lend in this case.

November 14, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Could the exact title nowadays. Does he propose to Minister of Transport advise us how we in table in the house the report that I believe British Columbia can get as good a deal on he has received from the Cape Breton Deferries as they seem to do in Nova Scotia? velopment Corporation with regard to future
planning in the operation of the coal mines Mr. Bell: We have had a raw deal.	jn cape Breton?



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, this week I wanted to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration but I did put it to the right hon. Prime Minister who gave me sound advice by telling me to put it again to the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration when in the house.
In view of the statements made by the police chief in Montreal to the effect that the presence of rogues in that city would be due to a poor supervision on the part of your department, does it expect to exercise closer supervision in the future?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have had no communication from the chief of police in Montreal with respect to any incidents or imminence of disorder.


Roch La Salle: I should like to put a supplementary question. You have probably not been officially advised.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member must direct his question to the Chair.


Roch La Salle: Are you aware of the fact that the police chief has made an official statement on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister of regional and rural development. I apologize if that is not his


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia is agreeable to it we will jointly publish the report.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, would the minister approach the government of Nova Scotia to see whether agreement could be reached about the tabling of this report?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will communicate with the Prime Minister of Nova Scotia, and I think he will agree.
[Translation\



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Can he tell us whether he will take into consideration the reports of experts concerning the closing down of the overhaul base in Winnipeg and its transfer to Montreal?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Timmins.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, would you
allow the Prime Minister to answer me, since I believe that he is ready to do so?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the assurance given by the former prime minister, Right Hon. Lester Pearson, when he was in office that the Air Canada base at Winnipeg would not be removed, certainly not until after 1972 at the earliest, does the government intend to honour that firm commitment given by the former prime minister?
November 14, 1968


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is reiterating a question which has been asked on a number of occasions recently.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister of Finance wanted to rise on a point of order on my last question, and I think he should be recognized.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jean R. Roy (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State or his assistant. Can the minister or his assistant inform us, or find out for us, if Radio Canada has decided to allow Rene Levesque to enjoy the privileges of an official party leader, as the French news broadcasts would seem to indicate?


Mr. Speaker:: If this question is in order it should be placed on the order paper. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker. I know I need the exercise of standing up. I was going to ask a question of the Minister of Transport, but perhaps I should let him have a little time to relax in the house again, so I will direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Does the minister concur in the statements which have been emanating from a number of his colleagues that unemployment in many parts of Canada has reached emergency proportions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question cannot be asked in those terms. The hon. member cannot ask if the minister is in agreement with statements made outside the house.


John Howard Lundrigan: Could I rephrase the question, Mr. Speaker, and ask the minister whether the unemployment situation in many parts of Canada has reached emergency proportions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that unemployment for the individuals concerned is always an emergency and a matter of serious concern.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Howard Lundrigan: As a supplementary question I wish to ask the minister, is he in agreement with or could he comment on the fact that the Minister of Finance has indicated that the major reason for the emergency situation with respect to unemployment is related to the government's cancellation of many programs?


Edgar John Benson: said nothing of the sort.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince
Albert): My question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the situation in Malton and the intended extension of the airport area. Approximately 100,000 people who will be seriously affected have raised strong objection. Under the circumstances will the government give reconsideration to its intended decision, or to the decision already made in this connection, and decide on a second area for an airport, as was done in Montreal, so these people who settled in the areas surrounding Malton will not be virtually dispossessed as a result of the additional areas being brought into the airport area?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, last summer when I announced that the government intended to proceed with the expansion of an airport facility at Toronto and the construction of a new airport facility at Montreal I made it clear in both cases that we had to obtain the co-operation of the provincial and municipal governments concerned with zoning in order to provide some element of protection for the airport itself and also for people who might be directly affected as a result of these measures.
Negotiations have been continuing and we have had a number of meetings with the province of Ontario and with various municipalities. I think it would still be premature for me to indicate what the final decision will be. Naturally we must have cooperation with respect to zoning in order to proceed with the expansion at that location.
If the necessary degree of co-operation is forthcoming all the expert advice we have

November 14, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry been given, based on exhaustive studies comparing alternative sites with an expansion oi the present site, which would indicate that it is the best place lor an expansion, on the basis of all the yardsticks considered by the experts, which included relations with people as well-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -I can only assure my right hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the tremendous upset to the people who have settled there, will not the minister give overriding consideration to the human element?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Well, of course always, Mr. Speaker, but there are many factors involved so far as providing service to the community is concerned. My right hon. friend will recall that it is not too many years since he and his party were criticizing the location of Malton airport as being too remote from Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: That statement is not correct.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one relating to seaports, not airports, but it is still ports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 look to port and recognize the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys.



MONTREAL-IN QUIR Y AS TO SNOW REMOVAL EQUIPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. As a result of the extreme hardship and difficulties suffered by thousands of people at Montreal airport during the last two or three days, and in view of the study that was carried out by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and the whip of the Conservative party, would the minister cause an investigation to be carried out to ascertain if there is adequate snow removal equipment at this airport?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is in effect making a representation to the minister. I intended to say there is no urgency to the matter, but I realize there might be so perhaps I shall allow the question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would not allow the question to be asked first.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister wishes to reply to the question. I pose it as the result of a 23-hour study by members of this house and senators, and because thousands of people were affected. Is there not enough snow removal equipment to maintain more than one runway clear at Montreal airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to make inquiries anyway, and if hon. members and senators could give me the results of their investigation it might speed up my investigation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


Robert Muir: would be very glad to give my view of it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member do this at some other time.


Robert Muir: May
I pose a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the period of time assigned for questions has already expired. I believe, however, we should allow the hon. member to set out his question of privilege.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time the Minister of Transport-


Robert Muir: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will have to consider the plight of the Chair which has to consider two points of order and
November 14, 19B8

a question of privilege. I suggest that according to the rules, the question of privilege takes precedence.
Kon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasl-ings): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is a great feeling to get vertical again. A few minutes ago I directed a question to the Minister of Transport and Your Honour ruled that the question had been asked previously and was therefore out of order. I have looked through the questions asked yesterday regarding Air Canada and the air base and there was no question asked, with respect, which relates to the question I asked. For that reason I would request your permission to re-ask the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask it some other day, as the question period has expired.


George Harris Hees: Oh, Mr. Speaker-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have not yet resolved the question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: That would ordinarily be very satisfactory, Mr. Speaker, and I should be glad to bow to your ruling. The difficulty is that the Minister of Transport will not likely be in the house again for some time and I should like to ask my question today.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the rules agreed to by hon. members and by which I must be guided in my decisions would allow me to permit the question at this time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might have the co-operation of hon. members. Apparently some hon. members wish to suggest that more questions should be asked. If it is unanimously agreed among hon. members that we pursue the question period-


Some hon. Members:: No.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: The question period has already expired by at least a few minutes. There are two points of order, and I should be pleased to hear them.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is a second question of privilege, and I will hear it.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members should recognize the fact that the Minister of Transport has been out of the house for quite some time and has been back only today. My question of privilege is that perhaps we should go a little easy on him, because he obviously is not with it after his long absence.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the house give permission to the Minister of Agriculture, the acting house leader, to indicate the business for the ensuing week?


Mr. Olson:: The Minister of Manpower and Immigration is the acting house leader.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was misinformed again. May I redirect my question.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys might allow the minister to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River. I will hear the hon. member's point of order, but I should say that the question period has expired. I will also hear the hon. member's question of privilege.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, later today we hope to deal with third reading of the C.N.R. financing bill, the customs tariff resolution and second reading of the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act. Tomorrow we hope to go into committee of supply to deal with the estimates of legislation and those of the Minister of Transport. On Monday we hope to go into committee of supply again to deal with the estimates of the Auditor General and the Treasury Board. On Tuesday we hope to continue with the Customs Tariff resolution, and then deal with estimates for the balance of the week.
November 14, 1968

Canadian National Railways
The house leader will be consulting with his opposite numbers as to the order of dealing with the estimates.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried to catch your eye earlier, and I would normally defer to your suggestion, but since this is the first time we have had the opportunity of seeing the Minister of Transport for some time I wanted to pose my question. It could wait until tomorrow, but according to my rotation I will not be in the house tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As long as I have an assurance that the Minister of Transport will be in the house tomorrow I will feed my question to somebody else who will direct it to the minister then. Otherwise I should like to ask the indulgence of this house to permit me to ask the question today. It does not really matter whether I ask it today or tomorrow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, health and
weather permitting I will come tomorrow to oblige my hon. friend.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which relates to a question I posed which is of urgent and national importance.


An hon. Member:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: The
Speaker sits up there. The reason I bring forward this question of privilege is the fact that the minister attempted to rise to answer my question. I believe he was prepared to answer it but was not given the opportunity. The house went on to a question of privilege on the part of another member. I posed my question because I should like the minister to find out whether it is a policy of Air Canada to allow paraplegics to sit for periods of from 22 to 24 hours in airports. They cannot be moved to hotels or motels. That is the point I should like to have brought to the attention of Air Canada.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith (for Mr. Benson) for the third reading of Bill No. C-124, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital
[Mr. MacEachen.l
[Stage Direction]
expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1968 to the 30th day of June, 1969, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and by Air Canada.
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in the third reading stage of Bill No. C-124 I should like to support the views expressed by hon. members on both sides of the house concerning the need for the best type of service at the lowest possible cost by our national transportation system, the C.N.R. I particularly support the representations made by hon. members from Newfoundland and the city of Winnipeg.
It is my submission that railways, by their very nature, are public utilities and should operate first and foremost as public services. The public and national interests must take precedence over the narrow interests of a particular railway company. Let me say at the outset that I have always felt the C.N.R. is a great transportation system and is doing a better job than most railway systems throughout the world. In my opinion the C.N.R. is doing a better job of serving the public of Canada than the privately owned system.
I for one would be much happier if this bill provided for several hundred million dollars more to allow the minister to commence to purchase and nationalize the other major railway company in Canada. As one who spent 15 years as a railway employee, watching the disintegration and discontinuance of the services railways must give the public, I submit that the new federal government must move toward a national transportation policy that will provide for an integrated transportation system which is rational, efficient and serves the people of the nation at the lowest possible cost. The public need for railway transportation service takes priority over private needs. If, for example, the choice is between passenger service needed by the people of Newfoundland or dollars, surely the choice is easily made. The people of that area must take priority over dollars.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I note that the bill calls for an expenditure of some $68,900,000 for equipment. I submit it is very likely that a large portion of this amount will be for rolling
November 14, 1968	COMMONS
stock and particularly for box cars. I plead with the minister to use whatever influence he may have with Canadian National Railways so that if they do not have sufficient rolling stock in the form of box cars to meet the requirements of grain movement in normal years, and particularly in years of bad harvest conditions, the greater proportion of the money provided for equipment in this bill will go toward the purchase of new rolling stock in the form of box cars to be used to move a greater amount of grain.
In my opinion, in the past several weeks both railways have done an abysmally bad job of meeting an emergency such as we have not had since 1959, and prior to that in 195152. In my constituency a C.N.R. shipping point, Tate, Saskatchewan, did not receive a box car for three and a half months. I hope that some of the money being voted in this bill will be used to at least buy one box car to send to Tate, Saskatchewan.
I submit that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and his colleagues the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) need to sit down with the officials of both our national railway systems and insist that there is an emergency requiring an allout allocation of freight cars to the movement of damp and tough grain. I estimate, and I am certain this estimate is low, that 100 million bushels of damp grain need to be moved within the next six weeks. This will require each of the two national railways system to allocate and spot 500 to 1,000 cars per day in order to provide for the immediate movement of damp grain. This product is of national importance and if it spoils $150 million in revenue will be lost to the agricultural industry.
I ask the Minister of Transport to take up with the railway officials the question of how many Canadian National Railways' box cars are on United States lines at the present time.
I know that sometimes it is very profitable, in the interchange of railway equipment, to have a great many cars on U.S. lines. I also request the Minister of Transport find out what measures are being taken to have these cars returned immediately to Canadian National lines for use in the movement of grain.
I ask the same question in regard to the Canadian Pacific Railway. I know I should not mention this railway company under the bill we are considering, but surely the problem is of sufficient national urgency to
DEBATES	2731
Canadian National Railways require the attention of all the ministers concerned. A systematic plan must be devised in the next two or three days by the ministers concerned, both railroads, the Canadian Wheat Board and the country elevators in order to provide for the immediate, total movement of this grain to terminals for drying.
I plead with the minister to make every possible representation to Canadian National Railways and the other railway company in this respect. As a result of my investigations and telephone calls to shipping points in my constituency and others, it is my opinion that this whole matter is being treated much too casually by both railways. It may require more than just the attention of the minister to solve the problem. It may require the minister to tell both railways the number of box cars they shall immediately supply and keep in grain movement. If they are not prepared to co-operate I suggest they be given no choice but be compelled to supply these box cars.
I spent 15 years as a railway station agent and observed the miserable and incompetent manner in which railway rolling stock is supplied for grain movement. There is nothing new about this. The railway companies take the position, first, that they are out to make a profit and, second, to provide service to the public. Therefore if rolling stock can be used to move lumber at $600 per car from British Columbia to the United States, that is where the rolling stock goes and the wheat can damn well wait.
I submit that because of the crop year we are having the railways cannot be allowed to allocate their rolling stock according to their present practice. I plead with the Minister of Transport and the other ministers concerned in the movement of grain to meet with the railway companies, the wheat board and the elevator companies in order to launch immediately a systematic allocation with regard to the spotting of box cars and the movement of grain to terminals. The grain drying equipment is there ready to be used and it is not being fully utilized at the present time. In spite of the fact that the Minister of Agriculture tries to assure us that all is well, the fact is that all is not well.
I hope that the expenditure of money on equipment will mean an increased supply of rolling stock suitable for the movement of grain so that no longer in normal or abnormal harvest seasons will we have to put up with
November 14, 1968

Canadian National Railways an unfair, inequitable and inadequate supply of box cars.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my intervention will be very brief. I would like to support the requests made so ably and eloquently by hon. members from Newfoundland concerning the Bullet. I draw to the attention of the house and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who again is not here today, the fact that in the spring the Conservative candidates from Atlantic Canada met in St. John's, Newfoundland, and among the resolutions drawn up at that time was one to upgrade the Newfoundland railway service rather than reducing it so drastically. We mainlanders from Atlantic Canada had the opportunity to sense the mood of the people of Newfoundland as well as that of our colleagues.
This is a serious matter to the province of Newfoundland and I think the need of its people in this regard should be reconsidered by the government. I know the government has the convenient refuge of saying that the C.N.R. has proceeded in the regular way and the transportation commission has acted. But surely the voice of this parliament means something, and the voice of the government in this parliament should mean something too. A direction to the C.N.R. and the Canadian Transport Commission could reverse the decision that has been taken.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I appeal to the government to examine this whole matter again in the light of the requests that have been so ably made. I also want to say to the six Conservative members of parliament from Newfoundland that they have 19 allies from Atlantic Canada who are just as firmly committed to this request as they are.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, on November 1 I dealt with the resolution presented to the house in connection with C.N.R. financing, and I should like to refer very briefly to one section of the resolution as some reference was made to it the other day by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). When I spoke on the resolution for the New Democratic party I said that we have a responsibility to ensure that the Newfoundland passenger service, trains 101 and 102, is not eliminated. At that time we suggested that money must be allocated for necessary services and that this was one of the most important services that must be retained if we are to keep Canada united. I went on to say that this government


will stand accused in the eyes of every man, woman and child in that province if it allows the cancellation of this rail service to go through. I referred at that time to the fact that we in this party agree wholeheartedly with hon. members from Newfoundland that the service must be retained.
I was somewhat disappointed when one hon. member expressed as late as yesterday his regret at the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his colleagues had failed to rise and support him in the house. May I say, in order to clear the record, that this party does support the hon. member's request and did speak in favour of retaining the service as early as November 1.
There is one other point which I should like to bring to the attention of the house. It has to do with an article published recently in the Regina Leader-Post entitled "Despite Experience of U.S. Train Travel Not Dying Out". I should like to suggest respectfully to the management of the C.N.R. that they are doing a good job now as long as they do not eliminate any more passenger services and as long as they provide the service which must be provided for all of Canada. The article reads in part as follows:

in some parts of the world travel by train is better than ever.
It is true enough that in some parts of Canada, particularly those areas that are serviced by the C.N.R., travel by train is better than ever, but if trains 101 and 102 in Newfoundland are eliminated I suggest we will not be able to stand up and boast about our passenger service. This article also refers to the fact that trains are winning new popularity in South Africa and in Canada where the Canadian National Railways has introduced a bistro car with sing-along entertainers, yellow-vested waiters and a gay nineties decor. I suggest that if we are to retain our lead in the world today we must not eliminate any more passenger services. I should like to refer to the last part of this article which suggests the following:
-the newly formed federal department of transportation has been taking steps to protect U.S. railroads, and new turbo trains and high speed city to city trains are being developed.
With our highway traffic jams steadily worsening and flocks of stacked airliners circling above the airports,... American travellers will have to return to the rails.
I suggest that if we expect to keep Canada united the people of this country will have to return to the use of railways. I believe it will
November 14, 19S8	COMMONS
become increasingly more impossible to use highways because they are becoming more and more congested, and as long as the air lines are subjected to the conditions to which they are being subjected at this time-we heard about this during the question period today-a return to the railways will become inevitable. I respectfully suggest that the management of Canadian National Railways give serious consideration to their transportation policy and ensure that their service does not deteriorate in any way, shape or form.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to the debate on third reading of Bill No. C-124,
to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system, will be brief because I feel that the subject matter has been quite thoroughly covered by previous speakers. However, I should like to say that I fully sympathize with the pleas and arguments put forward by my colleagues from the great province of Newfoundland with respect to the maintenance of the passenger rail service in Newfoundland.
May I say, since I come from western Canada, that several years ago we were faced with a rail line abandonment in our part of Canada which was particularly serious because it affected our agricultural industry. The same problem still exists there but fortunately for us a good mother nature provided us with several bumper crops and the railways found it necessary to maintain their rolling stock and to increase their box car capacity. So the railway service is being maintained for the time being.
Of course this was the policy of the previous government, ably supported by the minister concerned who put a moratorium on rail line abandonments at that time. I might say I had the honour of being a member of the transport committee for several years and flowing through the recommendations and the study that was made by the MacPherson royal commission was a thread of discontent with regard to the railway cost accounting formula on the part of all the witnesses who appeared before the standing committee on transportation.
It seems to me that whenever an application is made by either of the railroads for the abandonment of a service it provides us with a set of figures to which in many cases we have to object because they are not based on a sound costing formula. Only two or three weeks ago I put a question in the house to the
DEBATES	2733
Canadian National Railways Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer)-and I am sorry he is not here today-asking if he would intervene in the deliberations going on in Winnipeg at that time with respect to this very important matter because before we can make any decision as a matter of policy so far as rail line abandonment is concerned we have to have a costing formula that is satisfactory to all those concerned with the applications. Therefore I wish to make one last plea to the minister-and I hope he reads my remarks in Hansard-to see to it that the railway companies come up with a cost accounting formula that is satisfactory to the Canadian people.
One of the things that interested me most of all during the deliberations of the transport committee was the testimony given by witnesses from the interstate Commerce Commission of the United States concerning similar problems in that country. They insist that the participating parties lay the books on the table so that all the economic factors can be fairly reviewed before a decision is made. I suggest very strongly to the minister that he insist that this type of cost accounting formula be established here in Canada.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join my parliamentary colleagues from Winnipeg who have taken part in the debate on third reading of Bill No. C-124, particularly with regard to the Air Canada base in Winnipeg and its future. Apart from anything my colleagues said yesterday, a great many silly things have recently been written in newspapers and broadcast on the air indicating that a huge inter-city fight of some kind is developing.
I should like to pose the following question. For 300 years Montreal has prospered and grown as the funnel and hub through which things have moved into the hinterland and from there to other places. Montreal knows what it means to have a prosperous hinterland. Without it it would die. There would be no reason for Montreal to exist if it did not have trade and commerce coming and going. It seems to me then that the people of Winnipeg are not asking for anything unreasonable when they ask the government to agree with them that it would be best for the country as a whole and something upon which Montreal and Winnipeg could equally agree that the prairie provinces must prosper.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I feel that the regional development concept the government is bringing forward, as
November 14, 19G8

Canadian National Railways well as other manifestations of the just society, have to have something on which to build. It would be senseless, in my opinion, to allow an operation to close that employs 700 or 800 people and which, for all we know, may be the corner-stone for future development and the take-off point for Manitoba in a new and more prosperous direction. This could not fail but help Montreal to prosper because Montreal always prospers as a result of what occurs in the hinterland. Therefore, with respect, I think we should not pay any attention to the argument that Winnipeg is trying to take something away from Montreal because, of course, it is not. Winnipeg is just trying to share in the abundance which nobody ten years ago dreamed would occur as a result of the development of Air Canada. Air Canada has grown so extensively and its requirements have grown so much now that they cannot even be fulfilled at Dorval. At the moment we are asking to be allowed to retain a portion of the total over-all work Air Canada does and can give to a community in order that our community will at least remain where it is until such time as the just society and the regional development viewpoint can help us move forward again.
I suggest that when the regional air lines have been given permission to move into the jet age, and with the tremendous expansion the two trunk air lines are now experiencing, it is just ridiculous to feel that this work cannot be shared. I said once before that the people of Winnipeg are not small enough to try to oppose a great corporation like Canadian National Railways or Air Canada to the point of trying to cut off their money. When this bill is passed I hope the government will have the good sense to take these things into consideration as well as other things that have been said by other members so that this crown corporation, without being subject to interference in any way in its day to day operations-I would oppose that-could be used to a limited extent as a vehicle to help regional development and to help one region of Canada hold its own and prosper.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, on third reading of Bill No. C-124, the preamble of which reads in part as follows:
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System-
-I should like a few brief remarks on some specific points.

First of all, I notice a serious anomaly in clause 15 of the bill. I wish to discuss it at this stage of the debate in the hope of convincing the Minister of Finance to revise his position because, to my mind, this clause can absolutely not be accepted.
Clause 15 stipulates that private enterprise, more specifically a chartered accountants firm of Toronto and Montreal, three individuals more specifically, will be allowed to audit the books of this crown corporation known as the Canadian National Railways.
Now, in the report of the Auditor General of Canada for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967, specifically on page 140, paragraph 219, one reads, and I quote:
Since the Auditor General has not been appointed the auditor or the joint auditor of the following crown corporations and public instrumentalities, their accounts were not examined by him during the year:
A list follows of seven crown corporations whose accounts are not audited by the Auditor General of Canada.
One can read also, in the same report, which becomes interesting:
In its eleventh report 1966-67, the public accounts committee again repeated its recommendation-
This was not the first time it was recommended-
-that the Auditor General be appointed the auditor or the joint auditor of these corporations or instrumentalities-
-of the crown.
In Appendix 1 of the same report of the Auditor General, the recommendations of the standing committee on public accounts are also dealt with-I do not wish to bore the members, but the quotation is very brief and will throw light on what I consider an extremely important point-and I quote paragraph 27:
The committee noted that although this officer of parliament is the auditor of the majority of the crown corporations, it has not been the practice of successive governments to appoint the Auditor General the auditor of seven of the crown corporations and other public instrumentalities and that therefore their accounts have not been examined and reported upon by him to the house. The committee expressed its belief that it would be in the best interests of parliament in its control of public funds were the Auditor General empowered to audit the accounts of all of the crown corporations, agencies and public instrumentalities owned or controlled by the crown, wherever they may be, and to report to the house.
November 14, 1968	COMMONS
The Committee therefore recommended:
(a) that the Auditor General, be appointed either the sole auditor or the joint auditor pursuant to subsection (2) of section 77 of the Financial Administration Act of each crown corporation, agency and other public instrumentality-
This should also apply to the accounts of the Canadian National Railways.
The government does not comply with this recommendation since Clause 15 of Bill No. C-124 asks us to approve the appointment of outside auditors.
Mr. Speaker, the committee on public accounts reiterated that recommendation in its third annual report, that for 1968-67. It reiterated vigorously the recommendation made by the Auditor General of Canada in 1967, whereby he should act as auditor or joint auditor for all crown corporations, for all public organizations owned or controlled by the crown and report on his audit to the house.
This illustrates a basic principle of our democracy which says that every crown corporation must be accountable to parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Auditor General of Canada, whose responsibility it is to check expenditures and to see to it that public funds are used wisely, strongly recommends not to entrust private enterprise with the auditing of the books of public agencies or crown corporations, which are owners or trustees, since that violates the rights of parliament to receive an appropriate report. In fact, common sense and logic require that all crown corporations be treated the same way by the government and have the same obligations towards parliament.
That is why the Auditor General of Canada, through his functions and the laws to which he is subjected, is the official representative of parliament to check the books and see if the public funds have been spent wisely, and must report to the house.
In clause 15 of bill No. C-124 the government is assuming a right openly and against all logic. In fact, it wants to appoint as auditors of Crown corporations' accounts some private companies on very friendly terms with members of this government who do not miss a chance to reward their supporters, their members and their creditors. That explains, Mr. Speaker, why this man Touche mentioned in clause 15-of the three cases I will deal only with this one-received from the federal government $100,000 in
DEBATES	2735
Canadian National Railways 1964 and $125,000 in 1965. I find that unacceptable, Mr. Speaker. I feel that it is a shameful waste of the public funds that we must administer fairly. If, on the one hand, the Auditor General strongly insists on auditing the accounts himself, and in fact checks them, and if, on the other hand, the government disregards that and continues to hand over the job to private companies on friendly terms with the party at fees of $100,000 to $125,000 a year, I feel that is a scandal.
How much did Mr. Touche receive since 1964? How much did Mr. Ross get since 1964? How much did Mr. Bailey and Mr. Smart receive since 1964? Yet, during that time, the Auditor General could have done the same job for ten times less. This is very simple to understand, and it can be proved.
So, Mr. Speaker, needless to try and understand this situation. I wanted to inform the house on that point to try and bring the Minister of Finance to reconsider his position concerning clause 15 because, in my opinion, it is not at all acceptable. In fact, it is contrary to the recommendations made by the Auditor General of Canada in many reports and contained also in the report of the public accounts committee.
[DOT] (4:00 p.ra.)
What would have been the cost, Mr. Speaker, if the same job had been carried out by the Auditor General, who is duly authorized to do it? Why does the government, through the Minister of Finance, disregard the recommendation of the public accounts committee? That is one of the questions that we ask ourselves at this stage of the debate.
The second point I wish to raise, Mr. Speaker, deals with the Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg, about which I put question No. 724, made up of nine parts, on the order paper. Its purpose is to throw light on the problem of the possible or probable transfer of the base from Winnipeg to Montreal.
There again, Mr. Speaker, there are serious anomalies. In fact, instead of being sound, the present administration is irresponsible and does not take the economics into account.
In 1957, the Wallace Clark Company, at the request of the government, published a survey report which come to the conclusion that it was not efficient or economical to maintain in Winnipeg the Air Canada base. After the Wallace Clark report came that of the Thompson Commission which made the
2736	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways same recommendations and drew the same conclusion. The government remains unmoved. The Dixon Spears Associates was then invited to form a study commission. After a thorough examination of the problem, after weighing the pros and cons this commission came to the following conclusion: it is neither reasonable nor efficient to maintain the Air Canada base in Winnipeg and therefore recommend its transfer to Montreal.
In 1963, the President of Air Canada sent a letter to the employees at the Winnipeg base informing them of the transfer of the base to Montreal. Suddenly, the light goes out. The light thrown by the three study commissions in fact clarified nothing since the situation is still the same and the base has not yet been transferred.
Earlier, an hon. member said that this question should not turn into a strife between two cities. I fully agree but I do not think that it is a strife between two cities but rather a matter of efficiency and economics. Therefore, I ask myself a lot of questions, and I should like the minister to take them into consideration and to answer them as quickly as possible.
Has it been decided to move the overhaul facilities of Air Canada from Winnipeg to Montreal? If so, when will it be done? What were the factors involved in the delays concerning the implementation of the decision?
In February 1963, the President of Air Canada wrote a letter. Could we have a copy of that letter? What were the recommendations contained in the report prepared by Dixon Spears Associates and why have the recommendations concerning the transfer of the overhaul facilities not been implemented?
Mr. Speaker, the same question arises with regard to the Wallace Clark firm and the Thompson commission. The conclusions of these three inquiries on the transfer to Montreal of the overhaul facilities have not been implemented when they were in fact suggested by those three commissions.
Mr. Speaker, those are only two examples. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin) pointed out yesterday some anomalies about the Canadian National Railway. As for me, I should like to point out some others.
The hon. minister would find it to his advantage to enlighten this house and clarify this absolutely unacceptable situation, namely why cannot the Auditor General examine the accounts of the Canadian National Railways. This parliament has a right to get complete reports, to be able to examine the books

DEBATES	November 14, 1968
through its official delegate, the Auditor General of Canada, and the hon. Minister of Finance must reconsider his position as to section 15 of Bill No. C-124, so that private enterprise may not have the job of examining those books, since this is obviously a way of extending political patronage. The Auditor General, is paid for doing that and he can do it at a cost surely three times lower than at present.
Secondly, I should like the minister to make a decision and to tell us precisely what progress is being made about the transfer of the overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for a very few minutes on this bill because certain matters that came under my jurisdiction when I had the honour to be minister of transport some years ago are under discussion and I think are important.
First of all, I should like to speak about the discontinuing of the railway service in Newfoundland. When I took over the portfolio the railway in Newfoundland came under very exact and minute consideration with regard to its efficiency and usefulness. The result of this examination was that it was decided the railway was performing a useful role, that it was operating efficiently and that it should be maintained. Therefore, our government gave encouragement to the operation of that railway, and it continued to perform a very useful function on behalf of the people of that island province.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, I checked into the operations of the railway and discovered it was still performing a useful function in the province of Newfoundland. In my view and in light of my knowledge of the matter there is no justification in discontinuing this railway operation. I feel it should be continued in view of the fact that it is performing a very useful service to that most important province that joined confederation in 1949.
Second, I should like to speak very briefly about the proposed transfer of the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal. Once again this matter came under examination during the time I had responsibility for transport matters. It was decided that the base in Winnipeg was at that time performing a very useful function, that it was operating efficiently, and that there was no reason to consider transferring the operations in Winnipeg to any other location. Likewise, I have
November 14, 1968

checked into the operations of the base in Winnipeg in order to satisfy myself that it is still performing the useful function it was performing when I had responsibility for these matters, and I found it is so doing.
This base employs a very large number of people residing in the city of Winnipeg and vicinity, some 800 to 1,000 employees, who together with their families number some 2,500 people. To suggest that these people should simply pack up and move to Montreal is not a practical suggestion at all, particularly in view of the fact that this base is a first class facility, is operating well and can perform the functions asked of it efficiently and extremely well for Air Canada.
I thought it incumbent upon me as a former minister who has had some experience with these two matters to rise and urge the government not to take the actions that it appears determined to take in these two cases. I do not believe there is any necessity for making these important changes. The people of Newfoundland will benefit greatly by the continued use of the railway there, and the people of Winnipeg deserve to have this efficient air repair facility that has been in operation in the Winnipeg area for some years continued and maintained.
Therefore I hope that even at this late date the government will give serious consideration to re-examining the facts that have been put before them both by the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada, that it will reconsider the decisions that appear to have been made and will leave the railway in Newfoundland in operation and allow the air repair terminal at Winnipeg to continue its efficient operation in the future.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak after hearing the words of reason and encouragement of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I was also interested to listen to the comments of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). For the past few weeks he has been trying to obtain information to show that some of our crown corporations do not adequately reflect what may be called the French fact in this country. 1 do not oppose his efforts since on the surface his allegations seem justified. I merely bring to his attention that though crown corporations such as Air Canada and Canadian National Railways did not reflect a few years ago the fact that in this country there are several million people
Canadian National Railways with a French language background, that situation has been changed. Most people in this country are now satisfied that Air Canada and the Canadian National reflect the French fact in their employment practices.
Crown corporations do not exist merely to provide a service that will make the maximum profit. Surely crown corporations can be used as instruments of policy by the government. In this regard my comments have some bearing on the location of the Air Canada jet overhaul base at Winnipeg. Hon. members no doubt are well aware that there have been studies and reports as to the comparative economies or benefits to be derived by moving the jet overhaul base from Winnipeg to the more central location of Montreal. I will not challenge the accuracy of cost accounting figures which have been quoted though I believe one could challenge the accuracy of figures that different consultative groups have put forward. Though there may be a dollar and cents saving to Air Canada by moving its jet overhaul facilities to Montreal, there are powerful and logical arguments for keeping these facilities at Winnipeg.
One of these arguments is regional need. Another is that as a matter of national policy we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket. It is not in our national interest to cluster all our technological capability with respect to jet overhaul facilities at one geographic point. Even though such a clustering may bring dollar and cents savings, I do not think it is justified. The economic operation of Air Canada is important to Canada, of course, but such economy is only one factor which must be considered.
I believe all hon. members from the Winnipeg area have talked about this matter. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Richardson), who is a member of the Liberal party, the hon. members for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who are colleagues of mine, and the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), a member of the Liberal party, have all touched on this matter. Though my riding touches on only a small part of the Winnipeg area I have repeatedly said to the government that more is expected of it than it has done during the past 18 months with regard to the problem of the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg. The former prime minister gave a firm commitment that the jet overhaul base would not be moved from Winnipeg before 1973. We expect that promise to be honoured, and there must be no deception in the process.
2738	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
On a number of occasions recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has said that he cannot really prevent the continuing transfer from Winnipeg to Montreal of machinists and other skilled employees at the Winnipeg Air Canada base. The minister would have us believe that the transfer of personnel from Winnipeg to Montreal is a matter of negotiation in the collective bargaining between the union and the air line. Clearly that is absurd. The employees point out, and rightly so, that they have signed a collective agreement with their employer, the air line, and that it is not for the employees, the union or the bargaining agent unilaterally to try to prevent the transfers of any employees. Employees must abide by the joint decisions of the air line and the government.
Many employees do not want to be moved from Winnipeg to Montreal. Much though they may dislike what is happening, they cannot end such transfers. I point out that many of the present ministers were ministers in the former government. A commitment was given that there would be no transfers from Winnipeg until 1973. I hope that steps will be taken to prevent surreptitious transfers in the future of personnel from the Winnipeg base.
A few years ago Air Canada and the Canadian National embarked on a policy of hiring personnel who were fluent in English and French. Why was that done, Mr. Speaker? It was done because, as a matter of national policy, it was deemed to be in Canada's best interests. Clearly one must not look at the jet overhaul base of Air Canada merely in terms of dollars and cents. Much more is involved here than the balance sheet of Air Canada. The regional needs of the various regions of the country must be considered. We must also consider the kind of service the air line can provide to all regions of the country. Since its inception the air line has been closely connected with one region, the prairies, because of the availability of sophisticated facilities for aircraft servicing and overhaul. But now it has been decided to phase out this operation and leave this important regional centre as a place where only casual, relatively unimportant and, therefore, relatively unskilled engine maintenance will be performed.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In the meantime there is growing talk about the future of our urban centres in North America. There is concern about the pressures connected with life and living in the big urban conurbations of this continent
[Mr. Schreyer.l
DEBATES	November 14, 1968
such as Chicago, Montreal, Los Angeles and New York. There is the increasing problem of pollution, the pressure of rapidly rising land prices, the soaring cost of housing. Despite all this the government has apparently decided to sit idly by and allow the present trend to continue. In fact, the administration opposite is aiding and abetting this trend toward the concentration of our population in relatively few centres. At the same time, other regions such as Newfoundland and the prairies are underdeveloped and underpopulated; there is relatively slow growth in terms either of population or of per capita income.
I certainly hope that the government, if not the crown corporations of this country, does not regard these problems as being beyond our capacity to solve. It is not as though Winnipeg and the prairie region have been enjoying a rate of growth comparable with that experienced in the central part of this country. It therefore makes little sense to sit neutrally by and allow events to take place which will simply aggravate the present disproportion. Does it make sense for the government to engage in industrial incentive programs or area development programs when its own action can be so strongly criticized? According to the estimates passed by this parliament we shall be spending hundreds of millions of dollars in an attempt to encourage industry to locate in regions of this country where growth is relatively slow and incomes relatively low. We shall be doing all this in an artificial and desperate attempt to reduce disparities between regions. But at the same time we shall be allowing this crown corporation, an ideal instrument of national policy which could be used as a perfect instrument for reducing regional disparities, to follow a course of action which will produce a precisely opposite result. Wherein lies the logic, Mr. Speaker?
I do not suppose that at this point there is any real possibility of getting the ear of the government, any real hope of persuading it to reconsider this decision with regard to Air Canada and its intention to move the overhaul base to Montreal. Nevertheless, the plea must be made, as it has been made by Liberal members opposite from the west and by my own colleagues. We understand that the airport facilities at Montreal are now being used in almost every case to the utmost of their capacity, that the engine overhaul facilities at the Montreal airport plant of Air Canada are being used to the greatest possible extent. There is no indication that even if
November 14, 1968

the engine overhaul base were retained at Winnipeg it would mean a reduction in the amount of work carried out at Air Canada's Montreal hangars. As a matter of fact, projections indicate that the work there will continue to grow, so much so, indeed, that Air Canada must have plans to increase its facilities at the Montreal airport. In these circumstances, how in the world can any hon. member claim that we from Winnipeg are trying to take something away from Montreal?
As the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) put it yesterday, those who have been speaking about the situation faced by Winnipeg at no time had in mind taking something away from Montreal. They simply want to retain a regional operation, or industry, or facility, or opportunity for employment which Winnipeg has had for many years so as to avoid the disruption and dislocation that would be caused if this plant were moved to Montreal.
I challenge anyone to say that retention of the base in Winnipeg would change the picture entirely. If anyone could show that retaining the base in Winnipeg would somehow interfere with the growth of employment on engine overhaul in the Montreal area in a meaningful way, he would have a powerful argument. But even if the base were not transferred to Montreal there would still be a positive increase in the number of job openings in connection with engine overhaul at the Montreal Air Canada base. I repeat that to talk in these circumstances about taking away from Montreal something which will improve employment opportunities there is absolute nonsense. In proportionate terms there is no comparison.
However, I suppose the base will be transferred and that the government will set about preparing legislation as a means of inducing some corporation connected in some way with civil aviation to move into the Winnipeg airport area. There have been rumours already about two firms from Edmonton. There has been another rumour about Douglas Aircraft Corporation moving part of its Canadian operation to Winnipeg to fill the gap. It is rumoured that Douglas might set up an operation in Winnipeg to employ 500 or 600 people in the construction of aircraft wings and related parts. I dare say the government will be desperately seeking some such solution in order to fill the gap caused by its own failure to deal with the rather stubborn position taken by the executives of Air Canada with respect to moving the engine overhaul facility from Winnipeg to Montreal.
29180-173*
Canadian National Railways [DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In his last book, "The Distemper Of Our Times", Peter Newman referred to the attitude of Liberal governments in previous years being one of concentration on an area encompassing Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa. He pointed out that for all practical purposes the attitude of past Liberal governments to the rest of the country, to the Atlantic provinces, to Newfoundland, and to the prairies was that these regions were the great outback. Perhaps that is putting it in extravagant words. Perhaps it is overstating a state of mind. Perhaps it is somewhat unfair. I do not intend to enlarge on those words but there is something about that statement that does ring true, that is indicative of the present Liberal government and of civil servants in high places in various government departments.
I remember that one of my professors in my college days told me that between the Liberal government and the mandarins of the civil service there was an almost incestuous relationship. At the time I thought those were rather harsh words, but a few years here have persuaded me that there is an element of truth in them, not just with respect to civil servants in the departments but with respect to high ranking officials in our crown corporations. It seems to me from their attitude that there is an overconcentration of solicitude and attention for the central area of the country to the detriment of the prairie and Atlantic regions.
Unfortunately I do not know enough of the specific details to be able to come to the assistance of my hon. friends from Newfoundland with respect to the performance of Canadian National Railways in seeking to abandon completely passenger service in that province. However, I agree in spirit with the fight they are putting up, and I wish we were in a position to make the government and high ranking officials of the various crown corporations, including the C.N.R., more concerned about the needs faced by regions of this country that are somewhat remote from the capital city.
I realize that later this session we will have an opportunity to question officials of the C.N.R. at hearings of a standing committee-But I wish to say it is a pity that we are faced now with a bill to provide a sum of almost $200 million to the C.N.R. in order to enable it to acquire road property and equipment of various kinds without having the opportunity to examine in detail some of the
November 14, 19G8

Canadian National Railways procedures which the company uses in its dealings with the general public and in its dealings with contractors. I know that the Canadian Heavy Construction Association is on record as being very unhappy with C.N.R. procedures in calling for bids on construction contracts. Judging by the association s reference to some of these procedures it seems clear to me that some reforms and changes must be made. There must be more consistency between the contracting procedures followed by the Department of Public Works and the procedures followed by the C.N.R.
In a standing committee the other day when questioning Department of Public Works officials we discovered with respect to the construction of the National Arts Centre in Ottawa that when the prime contractor came across unforeseen construction conditions that were expensive to cope with, it was a simple matter to arrange a meeting between the contractor and the department where the unforeseen costs were discussed in a friendly way and as a result supplementary payments Were made to the contractor. Everyone seemed satisfied with that, except perhaps the taxpayers.
The C.N.R. does not operate that way. If a contractor makes a bid which is accepted and subsequently unforeseen conditions arise resulting in great extra cost to the contractor, the attitude of the C.N.R. is tough. It has been tough over the years. More than one contractor has been forced to the wall. Of course arguments can be made pro and con whether this is the right kind of policy or position for a corporation to take. There can be arguments on both sides, but I would like to see some consistency between the contract tendering practices of all crown corporations and the practices of the Department of Public Works.
In view of your impatience, Mr. Speaker, which I sense, I merely take this opportunity to serve notice on the officials of the C.N.R. before they are examined by the appropriate committee that they must supply us with a great deal of information to justify their tendering practices which seem to be at such variance with those of the Department of Public Works. I also serve notice that they will have to give a lot of information to justify their conduct in the celebrated case of the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway where, because of their own sloppy specification provisions, many contractors found themselves out on a limb and were ultimately forced to the wall. It is appropriate to serve
IMr. Schreyer.l

this kind of notice in view of the fact that we are being asked to pass Bill No. C-124 to vote close to $200 million to the C.N.R. In return we expect some answers.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to deal first with some aspects of the situation with regard to Air Canada. AH the previous speakers mentioned the fact that the decision of the government would result in some dissatisfaction on both sides, in two large Canadian centres. If we have to choose between displeasing Montreal or Winnipeg, in both cases there would be some dissatisfaction.
Should the government decide to leave the said base in Winnipeg, it is easy to imagine the outcry from Montreal, from all intermediate groups in Quebec and in particular from the labour unions of the Montreal area. We know also that the same thing can happen in Winnipeg.
In those circumstances, the government should be guided solely by considerations of efficiency since there will always be some dissatisfied people. In any event, there will be many more of course if the Montreal area must suffer the consequences of such a decision.
That is not necessarily a valid argument but I say that the government when reaching a decision must be guided simply by efficiency.
Recently the Post Office Department talked of profit and efficiency to justify the increase in postal rates. In my opinion, the Department of Transport should also take into account the fact that if the whole thing was installed in Montreal, it would be an economic venture, and it is the only valid criterion.
If one tries to satisfy a certain area from a political point of view, there is obviously dissatisfaction in another. Objectively, without any doubt, if it is proven that tremendous financial advantages will result from the transfer to Montreal, it seems to me that we should comply with that decision.
Those few comments on Air Canada have merely allowed me to state my opinion and finally to caution the gouvernement against the present situation in Quebec. Indeed, it is known that all these things have an unimaginable effect. Now, it would be useless to create critical situations for the Montreal area and the whole province of Quebec.
November 14, 1968

I will now deal with the Canadian National. First I will deal with the material situation of the company as far as the line between Quebec City, Abitibi and Cochrane, in Ontario, is concerned. As 250 miles of that line are in the riding of Champlain and that it is the only means available to me to get out of there-since there is no road suitable for motor vehicles-I often travel by train. The situation on the train is sometimes so ridiculous, so absurd that we may wonder whether the administrators are responsible.
For instance, I am told-though I am not given official statistics-that the operation of this line is uneconomic. That is hard to understand, if one considers, as I noticed it myself, as well as the citizens of the area, that the train on the Quebec City-Abitibi-Cochrane is always packed.
In fact, the last two times I travelled on that train, I had to sit in a sleeping-car. Surely the deficit is not due to a lack of passengers.
Moreover, the seats are not occupied by the employees since there is only one conductor and two assistants for a train of eight to ten cars, and the conductor has to deal with all sorts of people from La Tuque to Parent, and in Abitibi. In fact, most of them are lumberjacks, and we know that they work very hard cutting wood in the forest. Normally, they could relax while travelling to visit their girl friends in their respective towns or villages. So it happens that the train is full of lumberjacks who, most of whom wait for hours in small localities such as Sanmaur, Parent and others, for the train comes at one or two o'clock in the morning. During that time, while waiting for the train from six at night to one in the morning, they hit the bottle and they are often fairly tight when they finally board the train, so that the conductor finds himself in a pretty nasty spot. The conductors have presented reports on the matter and have simply asked the C.N.R. to put constables on the train to help because they seem to have great difficulties in keeping order.
The situation is somewhat paradoxical, since the train is the only means of transportation for many of the people in the area, and I wonder why this situation is allowed to continue.
There is also another point which is most important. If there really is no place on board the trains, why not run more of them for passengers and why, especially, not make
Canadian National Railways a distinction between the various passengers? For instance, I have seen with my own eyes the ridiculous situation where a mother accompanied by several children had to sit in the middle of a "gang", as we say, of lumberjacks and I can tell the house it is no fun to hear swearing around you when there are young children. Indeed, there is another situation which is little short of ridiculous.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
When funds are requested to assist the Canadian National, I don't balk of course, since they are needed. But on the other hand I would like some consideration given to the possibility of improving adequately the services in need of improvement.
I am not complaining about discrimination, but I do have the impression that generally speaking the C.N. is neglecting Quebec.
In the Ottawa area for instance, where 45 per cent of the population is French speaking, is it acceptable that sometimes the conductors speak only English? I would not mind if we were in a purely English environment, but it is a well known fact that 45 per cent of the people in the Ottawa area are French-speaking. And these things are still going on.
When shall we understand, once and for all, that all these companies that must serve Canadians, should serve them wherever they are, whether in Quebec or in other areas where there are a great number of Frenchspeaking people? As far as other provinces are concerned, it seems obvious to me that this situation should be corrected.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was saying recently in reply to a question from my colleague, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), that we never had it so good. I am tempted to say that it must have been zero formerly and two times zero is still zero. Even if the situation is twice as good or ten times as good as it was in the beginning, if it were zero, the product would still be zero. Therefore, we must ultimately have some real proof that things are going to be straightened out.
I am rather reluctant to bring up once again the matter of bilingualism. We know that in the opinion of many Quebecers, those who speak of such things today are moss-backs, old fuddy-duddies. People imagine that we are still fighting for bilingual cheques, money or stamps. Naturally, this is a huge joke in Quebec, but anyway, I wish to point out those strange situations.
November 14, 19G8

Canadian National Railways Here is another example of bilingualism aboard C.N.R. trains or within crown corporations. I personnally found out that in the sleeping-cars of C.N.R. trains' between Quebec and Abitibi-as unbelievable as it seems, since the train is a service to a population of which 99.9 per cent are French Canadians -there are very few English-speaking people. Believe it or not, among the employees of sleeping-cars, twice this summer, I met persons who spoke English only.
Now, if such a situation should arise in the Vancouver or Toronto area, it is easy to imagine the reaction of a Toronto or Vancouver citizen who could not make himself understood in English by the train officer. But this is what we have been suffering for years. This is, I think, what we had to bear unfortunately, because as I said, the federal members of Quebec have always been too long in office. They thought that this could give them some advantages. But we know what has been the result of this.
Today, for instance, in the course of the debate on Air Canada and on the base that must be transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal, the cabinet members of Quebec and of the Montreal area have practically not been heard to defend their own interests categorically and energetically. We are always dealing with this famous compromise and this is why we are always full of complexes.
We are proud of only one thing. We have developed a complex of superiority which makes other people laugh, in my opinion. Here is that complex of superiority: We understand them when they speak English but they cannot understand us. Is that a complex of superiority? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker, because whoever thinks like that is so weak that there comes a time when he must find some reason to appear strong.
Therefore, the material situation of the C.N.R. in Quebec should be given special consideration. The statistics I have date back a few years-unfortunately I do not have current ones-and I have no way of knowing if the situation has changed. In the largest province of confederation, the second with regard to population, it would only be normal to find the longest railway line, in miles. That would be normal since geographically, ours is the largest province. However, Quebec has only one eighth of Ontario's railroad mileage. We are not spoiled in that respect. This material situation must change if Quebecers are to be better served.


As far as the French fact is concerned, the situation is being corrected though there are still unilingual English-speaking employees on trains serving completely or almost completely French Canadian areas.
Mr. Speaker, I am not making these few remarks to complain about discrimination but to throw light on the problem, so that everyone can consider it objectively, as it is.
If we speak of economics, let us be logical all the time, and before concluding I will remind you of a few illogical situations. Changes are sometimes made in the railway service to reduce deficits, so they say. I agree with that up to a certain point. But when the Canadian National Railways decide for instance, to abolish the position of station-master in Saint-Casimir and that according to the figures for the last few years, the net amount of profits in that station has increased steadily, one begins to wonder what is going on. It is a profit-earning station, statistics prove it, but we are told that there are no profits. Such a state of affairs makes one wonder why should it always be the same people, the same places, the same areas, that get the worst of it on account of the decision to recuperate money, while elsewhere, it is clearly acknowledged that a deficit is acceptable for this or that reason.
Of course the purpose of a crown company is to serve the public and I admit deficits may be tolerated in some areas for very definite reasons. Such deficits cannot be avoided in the field of public service, but when an enterprise is profit-earning, hands off. That is what I had to say, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at great length on subsidies now under discussion, but I would like to say a few words about Air Canada. I would like to recall some of the history of Air Canada and I will quote an except from the Petit Journal, dated February 14, 1965:
From the time of its establishment in 1937 and until 1948, Air Canada has maintained all of its facilities in Winnipeg, except that its president has had his head office in Montreal from the beginning. "This was logical, said Mr. McGregor, as Air Canada was only operating on a local basis and Winnipeg was then the center of its air service. But the situation has changed through the expansion of our air lines in Eastern Canada, in the United States and overseas and the center of our activities has moved gradually towards the East."
November 14, 1968
And it goes on:
-Air Canada airplanes were DC-3's and the North Stars had just arrived.
Then
-there was no question of Super Constellations;-
-or Vanguards. As you know the use of Super Constellations has been discontinued by Air Canada.
-in 1952, the first turbo-jet Viscounts were put into operation. In 1956, Air Canada ordered DC-8's and Vanguards. Following the recommendations of the Wallace report in 1957 adopted the same year, construction began-
-of a new maintenance base in Montreal at a cost of $31 millions.
Evidently, there is no doubt and nobody will deny that the Winnipeg base is most modern and efficient. It is very useful and it is even necessary for the regional economy. But that is not the point.
The point is that the Winnipeg base is equipped exclusively for repairs to the Viscount airplanes, Dart motors and to DC-3's which are not being used any more.
As we know, the number of Viscounts flown by Air Canada is decreasing from year to year, and the Winnipeg base is still geared exclusively for the maintenance of those planes. We have now reached the point where, every year, Air Canada adds new planes to its fleet such as DC-9's and DC-8's. The repair shop in Montreal is very adequately equipped to give complete maintenance service to jet aircraft such as the DC-9's and DC-8's.
The reports of the various commissions created in the last ten years prove beyond a doubt that it is more efficient and economical to operate only one repair base for those jet airplanes. That is no reason to locate it in Montreal. It could be located anywhere else as well, but I believe the operating centre for Canada is Montreal, considering the developments of the last few years. We know Air Canada started servicing new lines last year, even though it had to face competition on certain lines in western Canada. Moreover, Air Canada was granted an important line between Montreal and Miami, and between Toronto and Miami which, I believe, within a few years, will contribute to increasing its profits.
We have nothing against the Winnipeg base, far from it. But I wonder precisely what we will do with that base when Air Canada has completely done away with its Viscounts.
Canadian National Railways This will certainly happen within the next two or three years at the most. We will no longer need it, as DC-9's will then be used. The DC-9 is recognized as a medium-run plane which can land on average-sized runways. It is very fast and can transport far many more passengers than the Viscount we now use.
Winnipeg will not be the only city to lose from the change. Let us not forget that the repair shop at Dorval, where the Vanguards are now being repaired. Within the next few years, they will no longer be used either. As a matter of fact, even now buyers are sought for those planes, because turbo-planes will no longer be used on the type of flights Air Canada will be operating within a few years.
I feel that officials of the department concerned should consult again the reports of the commissions of inquiry and follow the advice of experts. To my mind, that is certainly the best solution in this case, especially taking into account the considerable investments Canada has made in Air Canada. In the years to come, we will be called upon again to invest even greater amounts, in view of the important developments that will take place in aeronautics within the next few years.


Mr. Real Caoueiie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on Bill No. C-124 regarding the Canadian National Railways, as well as the services and the administration of Air Canada. I will speak especially of the deficits of those crown corporations, but all this is included in the expression "Canadian National Railways".
Mr. Speaker, I would probably not have spoken on that bill if, last April, I had not had the opportunity of going by C.N.R. to the west, namely from Ottawa to Vancouver. I went to Vancouver by Canadian Pacific and I came back by Canadian National to see the difference between those two companies.
Mr. Speaker, when one thinks of the fabulous amounts of money parliament must vote for the maintenance of the services of the Canadian National and one sees the difference between a service provided by a private company and a crown corporation, it is a little embarrassing to agree to pay such fantastic sums to maintain an organization or a crown company which has so little to give to the Canadian consumer.
For example, I have noticed that the service provided by the C.P.R. is decidedly better

2744	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways than that of the C.N.R. For instance, meals on trains going from here to Vancouver were much better on the C.P.R. than on the C.N.R. train. The C.P.R. train had observation cars which allowed us not only to look out but to admire enthusiastically the beauty of the Canadian countryside, particularly going through the Rocky Mountains; there were no such cars on the C.N.R. train.
Before we reached Vancouver, on our last day on the train, a C.P.R. inspector who had come aboard in Calgary offered my wife and myself a delicious meal-a steak, if you please-at the expense of the C.P.R. On the C.N.R. train, on the other hand, we could not even get a hot dog between meals which were served in an incredibly sloppy manner.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I think that if a C.N.R. director, for example the president, had to go to Vancouver, he would make the trip in a special car.
Members of Parliament are not entitled to such cars, nor are the leaders of the parties, except for the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). We have to go by sleeping-car and make do with the same service as everyone else. That is perfectly natural, under the circumstances, and it allows us to see the kind of service provided for the public travelling on C.N.R. trains.
Mr. Speaker, it was really humiliating for me as a member of the federal parliament to see this difference and to know that the C.N.R. is yearly in the red and asks parliament to make appropriations to allow them to compete with private enterprise.
The authorities of the Canadian National cannot balance their budget with their revenues from Canadian funds or moneys. On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific has yearly excess profits and pays dividends to its shareholders. As for us, we pay dividends to the Canadian National for services inferior to those given to private industry. This applies to the passenger service.
As for trucking, it is the same thing. We give grants to the Canadian National to allow it to compete with private enterprise in a very dishonest way. Private enterprises and the trucking companies, for example, do not receive any grant from the State, while the National Canadian Railways will cost the government and Canadians this year almost $500 million. We shall have to pay $500 million for people who make fun of us.

DEBATES	November 14, 1968


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: A pocket service.


David Réal Caouette: The member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger) is right when he calls it a pocket service. It is very seldom we hear such a clever intervention from a liberal member but it is true.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian National could provide at least a service equivalent to the one provided by the Canadian Pacific. I shall only mention a few details. Everybody has seen the roomettes of the Canadian Pacific. They are all neat and cosy, with small drapes hanging at the window. On the Canadian National one sees only flies on the windows. What a difference. And this is the company which is asking us to vote $500 million to maintain it in operation.
Moreover I have noticed that the Canadian Pacific has been accused on several occasions in this house of employing only unilingual staff. Do you know that on board the Canadian Pacific I was able to speak French practically during the whole trip from Ottawa to Vancouver, which was impossible for me on the Canadian National during my return trip to Ottawa? This is the kind of service provided by a government corporation.
Would the Canadian National tolerate in the province of Quebec that our employees speak French only to look after the people coming from the West or the Mari times? In this case again French Canadians are required to speak English and I have no objection to that. But why is the same thing not required from English speaking people who have to serve the whole Canadian public?
Mr. Speaker, these are discriminations not only from the linguistic viewpoint but also with regard to the service which we get on the Canadian National trains. I have often noticed the kind of service which we get between Ottawa and Montreal for instance. We are treated somewhat as a dog in manger. We are treated like dirt and, then we are being asked through the Canadian National authorities, to vote fabulous sums of money to keep these people on the job. I believe that is worth about as much as what it costs to manage the Canadian-National. That does not mean the employees are not willing to work well. But, where the authorities are concerned, and they are responsible for planning the work, something is seriously lacking. It is difficult to be heard by those people, to get a reply to our letters.
November 14, 1968	COMMONS
On my return from Vancouver, I tried to write to the president of the Canadian-National to advise him of certain failings. For instance, meals are called about an hour ahead of time and we are asked to answer a certain call. We go to the dining car, and there we have to wait another hour before finally being told that we should have gone on the first call instead of the third. It is just one big mix-up. In addition, rudeness is even allowed with the passengers. I have seen waiters being positively rude to passengers in the dining cars.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it might be a good thing for the officials of the Canadian National to travel incognito on the Canadian Pacific-and not in a special car-and to see what difference there is in the quality of the service between the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National as well in the profits at the end of the year.
Of course, the excuse is always the same: the Canadian National serves non-profitable runs while the Canadian Pacific has the profitable ones.
Take the case of my area, for instance. From a commercial point of view, the freight trains that run between Abitibi, Northwestern Quebec to Montreal, Toronto or elsewhere are probably the most profitable runs of the whole Canadian National network. But go and see what kind of service the passenger trains get from Cochrane to Hervey-Junction, -going through Noranda and Senneterre- where the train is divided into two sections: one for Quebec, the other for Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, there again we see how the Canadian National or the authorities are wrong. We are given the old cars, which were used in the Montreal and Toronto areas perhaps 25 or 30 years ago. Those cars were taken to Northwestern Quebec and we were told: Look at the wonderful improvement. The seats are battered, even when they are individual seats. Service is pitiful, and through no fault of the people in Noranda; only that of the Canadian National authorities.
Our people in Abitibi, our people in Rouyn-Noranda, our people in Temiscamingue, are they not right in asking to be treated as well as those in Toronto or in Montreal?
Now, we have trains with bar-pullmans and anything you want, which can go 100 miles an hour between Montreal and Toronto. But we have difficulty getting a car to serve coffee on a trip from Senneterre to Quebec 29180-174
DEBATES	2745
Canadian National Railways or Montreal. The coffee is not even good; it must be instant coffee.
Mr. Speaker, those lines are economical anyway. The transportation of wood from the Clova, Senneterre or Lebel-sur-Quevillon areas towards northern Ontario or lower Quebec is something which is economical for the Canadian National. The same is true for the Matagami zinc, the minerals which the Noranda Mines Company processes into brass ingots and ships to Montreal through the C.N.R.
On the other hand, as concerns the quality of service for passenger trains, the objection is that they are not used too much. One cannot blame people for not travelling on board of Canadian National trains because the quality of service is so poor that they only use them once.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
That is what we have in the north of the province to serve a population which is a source of profits for the C.N.R. That is how those people are treated. They do not even have suitable trains, cars to go to western Canada and we are asked to vote $300 or $400 million to pay the deficits of the C.N.R.
As far as Air Canada is concerned, its service has improved considerably compared to what it was a few years ago. If only the C.N.R. did the same, its service would improve very quickly. In fact, Canada could improve in some respects, but it is understood that perfection can never be achieved and there will always be room for improvement. However, Air Canada has improved its services considerably in the last five or six years. For instance, meals are now served at times when one were served in the past. Our stewardesses are charming and most of them speak both official languages. On the flight I took to Toronto during the weekend, the cute little stewardesses spoke French very well. I noticed the same thing in other areas of Canada, in Vancouver as well as in Victoria. The same is true for the Maritime provinces and Quebec.
Air Canada services have greatly improved. A second flight was requested between Montreal and Rouyn. This company granted it as an experiment last April and it surely did not regret it, since this second flight has become a happy, profitable as well as interesting undertaking for the people in my area who can go to Montreal twice daily. It is a very useful service to our people.
2746	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways
Mr. Speaker, those were comments I wanted to make especially in regard to the Canadian National for which we are paying through the nose while it complains about the decreasing number of passengers. This is due precisely to the quality of its service, because people are losing more and more interest in the transportation services offered by the Canadian National.
Therefore, I wish to call the atention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and the directors of the Canadian National to this situation by way of comparison between the Canadian Pacific that is run by free enterprise and the Canadian National that is subsidized by the government with tax money. As soon as this company realizes that the improvement of its services is to its own advantage, the Canadian people will then be less reluctant to have their money expended to make good those existing deficits. Canadians object to voting fabulous sums of money to enable one company to continue operations which have not proved too successful.
Mr. Speaker, those deficits are due first of all to administrative inefficiency on the part of the Canadian National. If its administration is experiencing difficulties, the government should take measures to sell the company to the Canadian Pacific as private industry can make it a profitable business. The government does not know how to administer companies under its jurisdiction. Instead of presenting deficit budgets, it should propose balanced budgets in order to render the best possible services to the Canadian people as a whole.


Bernard Dumont: Mr. Speaker, in beginning my remarks on the provisions now under consideration, I should like to comment on a statement I made concerning the ship Christina.
A Conservative member told me that the ship was bought for $70,000 and that today, following improvements, it is worth $3 million. That is true. The fact remains, however, that I did not have the figures with me at the time. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that, in 1932, the owner of the Christina also bought six cargo ships for a song. He paid $20,000 for each one of those ships, which had cost $1.2 million to build.
During a depression, conditions are very different. We understand how a man could have made a million dollars out of a single purchase. That is precisely what I am criticizing

DEBATES	November 14, 1968
the government for. It sold its ships at a ridiculous price instead of allowing the transaction to take place in Canada. Thus it allowed a few men to get rich at the expense of the nation. Millions of dollars were wasted during a depression, at a time when Canadians did not even eat three meals a day.
That is why we are asking questions today concerning the moneys to be provided. It makes us think, because we do not know exactly for what purposes these funds will be used. There was no lack of supplies in the thirties, and yet Canadians could not eat three meals a day. When war came in 1939, the government found a way to raise the money required to pay for the greatest carnage ever seen. Today, when we are asked to authorize Her Majesty to grant loans directly to Air Canada or to guarantee issues of Air Canada securities to the tune of 130 million, we can surmise that Air Canada has to cover a deficit in its operational reserves for the period ending on June 30, 1969.
The hon. member for Beauce, Mr. Rodrigue) referred a while ago to the transfer of the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal. Experts have said that the base should be transferred, or Canada would lose $10 million a year; if the Winnipeg base is not closed by 1973, $30 million will be wasted. If there was a wastage during the thirties when there was extreme poverty, there is a similar situation today. If we are asked today for moneys to be granted to Air Canada to allow it to balance its budget, we should take into account the technical reports recommending that the main jet aircraft maintenance services should be in Montreal.
Those recommendations were repeated afterwards by the Thompson Commission. We can even go as far back as 1957 and analyze the situation existing then when the Wallace Clark Co. of New York recommended the unification of all maintenance bases in Dorval. Finally, in 1962, Air Canada announced that the transfer of the Winnipeg base would take place progressively and be completed in 1966. From then on, politics came into play. To avoid any controversy, in 1963, Air Canada had to ask the Dixon Spear Co. to make a new survey and to find out what policy Air Canada should follow as to its maintenance, overhaul, and storing services, from 1964 to 1973. The said company stated that the maintenance base in Winnipeg should be closed as soon as possible, if Air Canada's operations were to be efficient and economical. Indeed, this report showed that Air Canada would lose more than $10 million if the Winnipeg
November 14. 1968

base remained open until 1966. We are now in 1968, and there are still people who do not want this base to be transferred to Montreal.
Personally, I am not against Winnipeg being able to provide jobs to its workers, for those people need employment. But what I object to and what I find ridiculous and what I merely call discrimination is that in Lauzon we have more than 1,000 workers to whom we had promised repair work on a ship, and that ship, mentioned again the other day, was merely a ghost ship.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
An expenditure of $450,000 should be made, but they could not find the necessary funds to enable these Lauzon workers, and I have not heard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order,
please.


Jean Marchand: Is the hon. member able to prove there were 1,000 workers in the Lauzon shipyards?


Bernard Dumont: I have here a report from the president of the labour union that states, in effect, that over 2,000 workers are unemployed in Lauzon; it is not only 1,000, but 2,000 unemployed workers, 2,000 bread-winners.
The government accepts a deficit of $10 million in Winnipeg, but is unable to grant an amount of $450,000 to give work to these people. We have not seen the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) rise and intervene to ask for this just society that we hear so much about.
This is rather an unjust society, and with the complicity of the Liberal members who, as was said lately by Mr. Claude Ryan, follow blindly the Prime Minister every time he raises his little finger, the ship has disappeared and it has become a ghost ship. Such repairs would have cost practically nothing compared to the deficit in Winnipeg. This is proof, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that Quebec does not have an adequate representation claiming justice for our people. Mr. Laberge, who sent a press release recently in which he stated, with regard to the overhaul base in Winnipeg, that political patronage would, once more, override the interests of the Canadian people.
If we continue to waste $30 million in order to help workers in Winnipeg while not even one member for the Levis area has 29180-1741
Canadian National Railways the guts to get up and request at least an equal amount, then I say that the province of Quebec simply labours under injustice.
We will say, for a long time in history, that instead of a just society, we had an unjust government.


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I only have a few words to say, and my creditiste friends are to blame who inspire me each time they take the floor in this house.
I was slightly amused to hear the hon. member speak of the Christina which it seems was sold in 1932 for a ridiculously low price; I have only one thing to say about this; the price was ridiculously low, Mr. Speaker. Many things were bought for ridiculously low prices during the last depression. I shall mention one case, that through which one of the spiritual fathers of my friends the Creditistes, came by his wealth. I shall even name him. I mean Mr. Henri-Georges Grenier who gives a helping hand to my Creditistes friends. On occasion he even writes their speeches-or at least he did. He has quite a propensity for Creditisme.


Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I should like to enlighten the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) who has just said that a certain individual writes speeches for the members of the Ralliement Creditiste. I want the house to understand that this Mr. Grenier, has never written my speeches.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, naturally, I have great regard for the word of my friend, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), but a Creditiste member told me what I have just said. I value the word of the hon. member for Abitibi-maybe there are things he does not know-but I also value that of one of his colleagues.
Therefore, I shall conclude by saying that Mr. Grenier-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Champlain is rising on a point of order.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) has suggested a member of the Creditiste party has told him what he has just repeated; being from the riding next to that of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres, I fear that some will think that it is the hon. member for Champlain-
2748	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I think that there is no point of order here and I would ask the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) to please limit himself to the motion for third reading of bill No. C-124 now before the house.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nevertheless, the house has probably noticed, that I was answering the remarks of my friend, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont). I listened to him with pleasure and attention, and the proof of it is my reaction. He inspires me, you see. You allowed him to go on; you too seemed to find him interesting. So my remarks are by no means, insulting, and that is all I am going to say.
I wish to tell him one thing of which he is probably unaware. During that same period, the depression, the citizen whose name I mentioned and who was a pioneer of the Social Credit doctrine, had acquired for about $50,000 a sky-scraper of sorts. The price was ridiculous, but those were the depression years. He himself resold it for $190,000 immediately after the end of the depression, and today, you could not get it for $500,000.
I cannot understand all this fuss about the bill before the house. What has this Christina to do with it? It conjures up some nice love-story and brings us a bit of relief after some of the things that we hear in this house.


Gérard Laprise: May I put a question to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Certainly.


Gérard Laprise: Would the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres agree to repeat publicly, in the press, or on a rostrum, the accusation he has brought in this house, where he is covered by his parliamentary immunity.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, have I made an accusation? I feel rather that I have recalled a fact that is not necessarily a crime, far from it. I say that it was a good transaction, that the things were done after such a fashion at the time. Business was transacted like that in private, and it happened often also in the public life. The matter has no connection whatever with this bill. You are quite right to call me to order, Mr. Speaker; I was just trying to entertain the house a bit.


David Réal Caouette: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) rises on a question of privilege.

DEBATES	November 14. 1968


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) said a while ago that Mr. Grenier's transaction or transactions at Trois-Rivieres could have been made at just about any time. He mentioned that Mr. Grenier had been a Creditiste for many years. I should therefore like to point out to the member that he is misinformed. As a matter of fact, Mr. Grenier has never been a Creditiste. He was promoting social capital and family capital in Trois-Rivieres. The former mayor of Trois-Rivieres must remember that.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I see that the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste is not aware of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I believe that honourable members will agree we have somewhat departed from the standing orders of the house and digressed from the consideration of Bill No. C-124.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: You will nevertheless admit, Mr. Speaker, that they were the ones who departed from standing orders and that I merely answered them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: To return to Air Canada-


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I could perhaps sit down and you would then allow them all to rise on questions of privilege. This would pass the time.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
honourable member for Lotbiniere is rising on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to point out to the Chair that it is not the Creditistes who have departed from standing orders but the honourable member for Trois-Rivieres himself. Moreover, he agrees with what you said a while ago to call him to order. I think that he does not talk about the bill because he is scared, because he would have to criticize too much the operation of the Canadian National Railways. Let him talk about the C.N.R.
November 14, 1968
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. There is no question of privilege. Order, please.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am not reluctant to talk about it, but my friends will not give me the time to do so. Three, four or even five of them rise on a question of privilege. As there are eight or ten of them, some more will perhaps rise.
The member for Frontenac has set out another idea a moment ago, suggesting to oppose Bill C-124, because Air Canada is squandering $10 million in Winnipeg and that it will be $30 million in a few years. The hon. member seems to forget two things: first, this money is used to help the provincial economy; there is something else besides, which he might not know, but this problem has been of concern to this party for some years. It is about to be solved. If he is willing to wait for a few weeks all his worries will disappear.
I heard part of the speech made by the member for Temiscamingue. I found him interesting, as usual. I always listen to him with interest Mr. Speaker. I feel inspired by him too. He might be right about the service of the C.N.R. in his area. It is possible, I have not been to the Abitibi region, and to Rouyn-Noranda in particular, by train for a long time. I go by car usually and I suspect that my hon. friend does too. He is probably right. However, I have had the opportunity, say in the last five or six years, to make several trips aboard C.N.R. trains in Quebec and in other provinces.
It is rather strange but I did not see the things he did. I will admit that some things are not perfect in the C.N.R., for instance the way employees are treated in some stations, some services. I will also agree with the hon. member that the C.N.R., or the C.P.R. for that matter, has not always been human with the employees and in many cases has been radically inhuman. I will agree with the member any time on that. However, as far as what he said about the service is concerned, I must point out that there is a substantial difference between the service given in Abitibi and Temiscamingue and that on other lines; I noticed it myself and many people have told me the same thing.
Nowadays, contrary to what used to be 20 or 25 years ago, the Canadian National gives an excellent service; it is much better than on the trains of the Canadian Pacific. For example, on a train between Montreal and
Canadian National Railways Ottawa, a perfectly bilingual and very polite conductor gives all sorts of explanations to passengers. I also travelled throughout Canada recently. I do not want to engage in a discussion with the member for Temiscamingue because he may have noticed something which I failed to see. I think that the Canadian National service is to a large extent better than that provided by the Canadian Pacific as the latter gives the impression of trying to discontinue its passenger service as soon as possible.
After what I have just said, I would not like my hon. friends from the Ralliement Creditiste to have a heart attack every time I rise to speak, for I bear them no malice. Those are facts, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about in a friendly spirit. I would not have brought up the subject had they not done so in the first place. I have nothing more to say, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would have a few-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is brought to my attention that the hon. member has already participated in the debate and evidently he cannot speak a second time. Does the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres wish to accept a question?


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I am always happy to help my friends to learn something.


René Matte: Would the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres tell us whether he was, during his last trip, a passenger aboard a Canadian Pacific train or one of the Canadian National which he has just praised?


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, our friends of the Ralliement Creditiste are foxy. Last week, on leaving Ottawa, I had the pleasure to travel with my friend aboard the Canadian Pacific. It was a most enjoyable occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: We both had a rather enjoyable conversation. I was glad it happened and I would like it to happen again. However he does not know that I returned to Ottawa with the Canadian National and this is an almost weekly occurrence.



November 14, 1968
Royal Assent
You see, Mr. Speaker, how much our friends on the other side are in need of information.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this house that the Senate has passed Bill C-110, an act to amend the Farm Credit Act, without amendment.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at the time of the adjournment tonight are as follows:	the hon. member for Winnipeg
North (Mr. Orlikow)-R.C.M.P.-comments of a judge of the Supreme Court of Manitoba; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr.' Orlikow)-Human rights-statement on non-discrimination policy in Northern projects; the hon. member of Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-C.B.C. television-description of Americans.

Is it the wish of the house that we proceed to the next order of business in view of the fact that arrangements have been made for royal assent in just a few moments?


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it might meet the wishes of hon. members if we began the next order of business, which is a complicated one, after royal assent has been given, that is, at eight o'clock this evening.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
IMr. Mongrain.]


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General that this honourable house attend him immediately in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
An act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act.
An act to amend the Farm Credit Act.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all applications and/or other documents leading up to the granting of a passport and/or passports to Mr. James Earl Ray, the alleged assassin of Martin Luther King.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a request for the production of two applications which must have been completed by one James Earl Ray and one or two other people in relation to two Canadian passports which were found in the possession of the accused at the time he was arrested and taken to the United States by the proper authorities.
The first question which might be asked is, why do I feel this information should be forthcoming? I have in my hand an application for the issuance of a passport. As all hon. members will agree, a passport issued to a Canadian citizen arms that individual with identity not only in his own country but, with proper documentation, the right to enter other countries throughout the world. It is a very important document. In certain spy rings documentations are forged, including passports of various countries. Therefore the
November 14, 1968

issuing of a passport to a Canadian citizen is very important because a passport is one of the most important documents issued to any of us during our lifetime.
In examining the application form, which has been very carefully prepared by the department, we find that the information required includes proof of the individual's name, date of birth, identity, place of birth, height, colour of hair and eyes, weight, occupation and visible distinguishing marks. An applicant is also asked about his marital status. If the applicant was not born in Canada he must show proof of Canadian citizenship. A passport is then issued to a Canadian citizen, as I understand it, after he has signed a declaration. A declaration of a guarantor must also be completed. This is usually completed by a person in a certain category

a solicitor, a notary public, a member of parliament or a clergyman. That individual guarantees that the facts disclosed in the application are correct and that he personally knows the applicant. He then takes a solemn declaration in accordance with the law.
I might say for the record that perhaps too many of us do not analyse these documents carefully until a matter such as the one now before us comes to our attention. If the guarantor happened to be a solicitor such as myself the declaration would state: "I, Eldon Mattison Woolliams, declare to the best of my knowledge and belief that the statements made in this application are true."
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
That is the first point. Whoever made the declaration in respect of the passport application of James Earl Ray must first have declared-and this is a very serious matter- that all the statements made by the applicant were true to the best of his information and belief. In order to make such a declaration one must have knowledge of the applicant. In other words, such a declaration is not made lightly. The person you go to see is generally your solicitor, clergyman or member of parliament, a person you know and who knows you. People in this category make declarations in respect of applicants for passports; they declare that they have known them for a number of years.


An hon. Member:: A member of parliament is not included now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says that a member of parliament is not included now. He used to be. Some members of parliament,
Passport Applications
like myself, are also solicitors and we are in a dual capacity. You declare that you have personally known the applicant for a number of years. Two years is the minimum. It used to be much longer. You specify the time you have known the applicant. Usually the declaration is made by somebody who has known the applicant for ten years. After you have sworn that you know the facts contained in the application are true and you have known the applicant for at least two years, you sign the declaration and it is attached to the passport application. A photograph of the applicant is also included in the passport application. The person making the declaration must certify that the photograph is that of the person making the application.
What are the facts in this regard? We are told by the C.B.C. what happened in this case. We were not told by the government because we cannot get this type of information from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I do not know why we cannot get this type of information from him, but that is the situation. I do not know why he would want to hide it. We cannot get this information from the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). Perhaps they are so cautious about giving information that even if it is not harmful it is not given to us.
We have not been able to obtain from the government information as to who actually signed the declaration or how many applications were made. But the C.B.C. tells us that two applications were made. We know that the person who obtained these two passports, James Earl Ray, has been charged in the United States with the assassination of Martin Luther King. James Earl Ray is an escapee from a penitentiary in the United States. He entered Canada legally or illegally, and after getting into this country he made an association, female or otherwise. I am certainly passing no judgment so far as she is concerned because I do not think she enters into the picture except in a social way. She knew this person and probably felt sorry for him. We know that many of these fellows can con people. They look like ministers of the cloth, but when you find out their character you realize what they are.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, this man came into Canada and met somebody unknown, also an American. They were probably connected through one of these crime syndicates we have been talking about. The deal was made. This matter is not before our courts. James Earl Ray stands charged in the United

November 14, 1968
Passport Applications
States with the assassination of a Nobel prize winner who did a great deal to bring together the two races in that country. There is some suggestion that Ray was merely there as a bluff for somebody else and did not commit the act of which he is charged. However, that will all come out in the trial to be held in the future. I see that he has now changed solicitors. But that is not the complaint I am making, Mr. Speaker. My complaint is that here we have a Canadian or Canadians, two of them, who made a solemn declaration, first that they knew that the facts contained in the application for passport were correct and, second, that they had known this person for two years and knew him to be a Canadian citizen.
When we asked questions of the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice in respect of this matter we received the same kind of answers as we received in respect of Hal Banks. We now find out that two passports, not one, were involved. We have found this out because you can get more information from the C.B.C. than from this government. It appears, as I say, that two passports were obtained by this man. Section 10 of the act requires a commissioner to take an affidavit to satisfy himself that the deponent's signature is genuine, and then personally to administer the oath to the deponent. It provides for a fine up to $500, and not less than $25. That is in the statute.
It is difficult to obtain information from the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice. They are great buck-passers. If the question is a little difficult for the Solicitor General to answer, he says it is not within his jurisdiction and is a question for the Minister of Justice, and vice-versa. Sometimes they throw up their hands and say they do not have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The Minister of Justice is responsible for justice in Canada, but laying charges under the Criminal Code is the function of the attorneys general of the provinces. I will come to grips with that problem in a few moments.
The fact that a crime has allegedly been committed by one or two Canadians with reference to this application is a serious matter. It means that perjury has been committed or a false declaration has been made in contravention of the Criminal Code of Canada. I will read the relevant sections of the Criminal Code in a few moments. I would have thought that the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General, whose function it is to administer justice in this country, would have
[Mr. WooIUams.l
made sure that the most serious charges were laid in respect of completing an application for a passport, knowing the facts contained therein to be wrong, in order that a gangster of another nation could take advantage of the passport. This is why I have been asking questions about the matter; it is not that I hold any brief for James Earl Ray. People throughout the world had a great deal of sympathy for Martin Luther King. However, I am talking about the administration of justice. This is my great concern, as it is that of most people in the world wherever they may live.
To the service of criminal justice, the great concern of men on earth, we must bring the best and most dedicated talents among us. This is why the responsibility for the administration of justice in this and other countries is supposed to be given to men who rise above party politics. Such men are appointed to this position if they have these qualities to administer the law of the country. Under our system it falls to the party in power to appoint such a man. When a man is appointed to this position he is supposed to devote himself to the welfare of the citizens of the nation and rise above partisan politics. These people we must train and perfect. We must bring out the best in all who serve. The direct impact of police, judges and corrections officers on the well-being of every Canadian increases steadily because we live together to a greater degree than ever before. We cannot afford less than the best. We must engage in a continuing conversation, a free interchange of experience. Effective co-ordination among all agencies is necessary, and research and development should be available for every criminal justice need. Surely, Mr. Speaker, this is the very least we can hope for from a minister of justice.
What is the situation here? I repeat that two declarations were made by two guarantors who swore falsely-they must have- about the facts contained in the passport applications. They could not truthfully say they had known this man for two years because during some of this time he was incarcerated in the United States.
Someone has suggested that a travel agency may have been mixed up in this matter. If travel agencies in Canada are completing such declarations to obtain passports for people, then this is putting a heavy responsibility on the personnel of the Department of the Secretary of State.
November 14, 1968

[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
Now I should like to come to the reason I want this information. Let me ask this question: How did Ray get the two passports? We know that the people in the passport office are overworked and that there are too few of them. So far as members of parliament are concerned we all agree that the people in the passport office are very helpful when we ask for special privileges for constituents who want the procedure expedited so they may go overseas to visit their relatives. When we submit an application in the morning we often get it back in the evening. The people in the passport office do a tremendous job which they perform with the degree of responsibility one would expect from public servants. But they are overworked; they receive thousands of applications which they do not have time to process properly.
How did James Earl Ray get these two passports, and what about the two false declarations? Who are these people who have not been charged either with perjury or with making a false declaration? These two men have not been charged by those responsible for the administration of justice in this country. I do not think this is a flimsy matter because here we have a man who is charged with taking the life of a Nobel prize winner, a foreigner and a gangster who came to Canada and obtained two Canadian passports. If we are going to take this lightly what will happen to the administration of justice in this nation under this or any other government? Will Canada slowly drift into the carelessness of the United States where lawlessness is rampant rather than the rule of the law, which we respect and which is for the protection of our families? If we relax our rules in this regard we let down the administration of justice.
I read with great interest the article in Maclean's magazine about the great reformer, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). He was not in the house very long before being catapulted into the prime minister's chair. He did not bring about any reforms when minister of justice, and I am not criticizing that, but I read the other day that he was a great minister of justice. I suppose he was great because he was silent; at least, we did not know what he was doing. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has already received acclaim in Maclean's magazine which says that he will be a great reformer-not jam today, jam tomorrow. We have had some great ministers of justice in this nation from the two national
Passport Applications
parties. I can think of Mr. Lapointe who had the respect of every Canadian of whatever political philosophy, and others such as Mr. Fulton. Whatever we may have thought about them they were men of integrity who wanted to see the law enforced properly.
Why were these charges not laid? The flimsy excuse has been given that one man has been charged under the commissioners of oaths act of the province of Ontario under which people wrongly issuing a passport or signing an application for a passport for a gangster from the United States are fined $25. What is the position of the Department of Justice in this regard? Is it the minister's fault, or whose fault is it? Let us take a serious look at the Criminal Code of Canada. Section 112 reads as follows:
Everyone commits perjury who, being a witness in a judicial proceeding, with intent to mislead gives false evidence, knowing that the evidence is false.
Such a man is guilty of perjury. Then we have other sections with regard to perjury, false declarations, false affidavits and false oaths under examination for discovery in the presence of officers of the court. Then we have section 113 which reads as follows:
Everyone who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for 14 years, but if he commits perjury to procure the conviction of a person for an offence punishable by death, he is liable to imprisonment for life.
Of course section 114 will have to be brought up to date but it shows how serious it is to take a false oath when giving evidence at a trial, whether civil or criminal. Perjury is a very serious offence if you make a solemn declaration under oath knowing that your statements are false, and particularly if you induce an officer of some department of the government to do an administrative job such as somebody did for this man. I am not suggesting for one moment that the minister has anything to hide-surely he has not-but I cannot understand why he would not get up and say, we will file those two documents and we will give this information to the opposition, whose function it is to do their job and find out facts from the government. This is all I am doing. It is my responsibility to see that the government is doing its job.
In this case I do not think the government is doing its job and I do not think the minister is doing his job. I know that the minister is a busy man, but once this matter was brought to his attention he should have said, as graciously as I would have thought he

November 14, 1968
Passport Applications
would-I have always found him to be a gracious and nice man-certainly we will find these two documents and if there is a need for an investigation we will ask the police to interview these two people or one person, whatever may be the case, with regard to the application. Is there anything to hide? I do not know why the government is frightened with regard to these things, and it is not the only government that has shown such fear; I have seen ministers from other parties do it also.


An hon. Member:: I do not think he is afraid.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody has said he does not think the minister is afraid. The hon. member must be an idealist who has just arrived in this place. I have seen it and others have seen it. Let us take a look at some of the other sections of the code. Section 114 reads as follows:
False Statements in Extra-Judicial Proceedings. Everyone who, not being a witness in a judicial proceeding but being permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement by affidavit, by solemn declaration or orally under oath, makes in such a statement, before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before aim, an assertion with respect to a matter of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge, knowing that the assertion is false, is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for fourteen years.
I am reading now from Crankshaw's Criminal Code of Canada which does not have all the amendments, but the following section is the same. It is a continuation of section 114 and reads as follows:
It will be noted that the offence under s.114 above refers only to "extra-judicial" matters. It is, therefore, distinguishable from an offence under s.112 or 113 which are applicable to "judicial proceedings" as defined by s.99 (c).
This of course means giving evidence in a trial and making a statement you know to be false which leads to a conviction of some kind. If the charge were capital murder the person making such false statement could be committed for life. The section continues:
There is no definition of "extra-judicial" matters but the application of s.114 is restricted to situations where a person-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him that his time has expired, unless he has the agreement of the house to continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Mr. Woolliams.l


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The section continues:
- (not being a witness in a judicial proceeding) is "permitted, authorized or required by law to make a statement by affidavit, by solemn declaration or orally under oath".
As I see it, that section applies to the making of a solemn declaration that all the facts about the application are known to you and also to the declaration that the applicant has been known to you for at least two years. Whoever completed that declaration in this case told a lie, first, that the facts in the application were true-it is a lie because the fellow was not resident in Canada and was not a citizen-and, second, that he had known the person for at least two years. It is not likely that he did know him for two years, and if he did this only compounds the crime because James Earl Ray had just escaped from a penitentiary.
Section 118 reads as follows:
Signing Pretended Affidavit.
Every one who
(a)	signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,
(b)	Using Pretended Affidavit.-uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared-
(c)	Writing Purporting to be Affidavit.-signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared,
is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I have referred to sections 112, 114, 116 and 118 of the Criminal Code and made a differentiation between those sections which apply to persons making false statements under oath or swearing a false oath in connection with judicial matters, and other matters which are not judicial. The latter reference applies to the matter before us. As a member of parliament trying to do a job, I would have hoped that when I asked, that these documents be filed the documents would have been filed. If the documents show two people signed, different people who signed affidavits or declarations, then that is a question for the law officers of this nation, both federal and provincial, to look at in the light of the sections of the code, and lay the appropriate
November 14, 1968

charge. This is the course that should have been adopted, rather than laying a little summary conviction charge under the Commissioner of Oaths Act. If this newspaper article is true, that is what should have been done. I have no information other than would be revealed in the documents, and that is why I am asking this minister now to file the documents so that I may learn the facts. There may be more to this matter than I can see; and if there is, why cannot members learn about it?
We have been told that because the matter is before the courts it is impossible for us to have these documents. We have been told that the matter is sub judice. This rule only means that we should not say anything to prejudice the accused. It is not an umbrella for the government to hide behind, and say that they do not have to disclose these documents. Rules are to be used for the protection of people and are not intended for the government to hide behind. The government should make these documents available so that we can find out the names of the persons involved. Is this going to prejudice the accused? Is it going to prejudice the accused in connection with this particular charge?
These documents should be filed because investigation may reveal that other charges should be laid. Then a member of parliament who is doing his duty, taking his responsibility, could bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) who, in turn, could bring it to the attention of the appropriate officers and a proper charge could be laid. I want to ask this question: What is the Minister of Justice hiding? Why does he put me in the position where I have to debate this motion, when he could have merely filed the two documents? When we get an answer to that, we might ascertain the information in these documents.
I want to draw just one analogy, and then I am through. Since there is a new administration in the United States, today I asked the Minister of Justice whether he, through the proper diplomatic channels, would ask the new administration when they take office to review the political or administrative decision in respect of Hal Banks. Certainly this was not a court decision, because the United States court ruled that Mr. Banks should come back to Canada to stand trial on the charge of perjury. In fact, what would have happened when he came back here was that he would have been in the little old penitentiary, waiting for his appeal or serving the
Passport Applications
three or five year term, whatever it was. When I asked that question of the minister, he said I was learned in the law, and I know he feels he is learned in the law. He said the courts had made a decision in that case. The courts had made a decision, and they made a decision in favour of returning Mr. Banks. However, Mr. Rusk made another kind of decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the hon. member is now going beyond the terms of the motion now before the house, which is that certain papers relating to a specific case be tabled at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, but I am drawing an analogy between the circumstances that existed then and those which exist now, to explain why they will not produce these documents, why they will not give that answer. These circumstances are obvious, but I do not know them now. It is for that reason I want the documents. We know what the newspaper story said, whether it is true or not-that the Democratic party got $100,000. Then Mr. Rusk made an administrative, political decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member and ask him to respect the rule which requires hon. members to confine their remarks to matters that are relevant to the motion before the house. The hon. member knows, much better than I do, that this type of motion permits a debate which is limited in scope. The only thing that ought to be discussed at this time is whether or not certain papers should be produced. We should not be discussing the substance of the case behind the documents, but we should limit our discussion to whether the papers should be produced. There is a considerable number of decisions by previous very learned Speakers to this effect. I know the hon. member is quite aware of the situation.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I appreciate your confidence in me, Mr. Speaker, when you say I am aware of the rules of debate. These things are interlinked with the reason for the refusal to produce these documents. We have to satisfy the government, either by a sales job to show that they have nothing to fear, or a sales job to show that no matter what they fear they should fulfil their responsibilities. We have to get the facts. However, I shall let the analogy drop at that. As I said, it was an administrative and political decision which was made, so the statement made this afternoon was not correct.

November 14, 1968
Passport Applications
Since I am over my time, may I ask in conclusion: Were two passports issued? Who completed the two applications? Who made the two false declarations? What criminal charges will be laid? What kind of investigation is being made? When will this lengthy investigation end, so the people can be brought to justice? I refer to the people who embarrassed the department so far as the documentation is concerned. This half hour could have been saved if the government had fulfilled its responsibilities. I do not believe-or I would hope-they had nothing to hide. However, even if they did, they have a responsibility to produce these documents.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the officials of the Department of External Affairs intend to give serious consideration to his comments.
On the other hand, the government has nothing to conceal. On the contrary, it wishes to co-operate fully with the law. In fact, the case is pending before the courts and consequently it is sub judice.
It can be expected that during the trial, the documents referred to by the hon. member will be brought before the court. Conse-qently, they will automatically become public. The hon. member will then have no trouble finding out the details thereof. Therefore, I would ask the hon. member once again to withdraw his motion.


Frank Howard: I must apologize now, Mr. Speaker, for the fact that I was born and raised in British Columbia, and lived there all my life except for occasional forays into eastern Canada. As a consequence, I did not have much opportunity to learn the French language. The simultaneous translation system was not functioning from French into English while the hon. gentleman was speaking, so I heard only the last part of his remarks. He seemed to be saying that this matter is before the courts and is therefore sub judice. Eventually, the information will become public. In view of that fact he asked the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) to withdraw his motion. This is the sense of what I got from his remarks.
I am not speaking for the hon. member for Calgary North in this situation, but I believe this is precisely what the president of the

Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said on November 6 when this matter was raised. The hon. member for Calgary North did not agree, and the matter was transferred for debate. I presume the same answer will now be forthcoming.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
There are two or three matters that disturb me about this situation, Mr. Speaker. One is whether or not this case is sub judice. Another is the proposition that was put forward by the hon. member for Calgary North, that on the surface-and there has not been any argument about this to the contrary-there are instances of somebody having signed a passport application as guarantor in a false manner; that there is here an element of somebody having perjured himself or having signed the passport application knowing that his declaration was false. This, Mr. Speaker, at least from what we have been able to find out so far, is factual and correct; certainly no one has argued to the contrary.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, and since this question has been a matter of public knowledge for some time, it seems to me that the law officers of the crown, or the attorney general of whatever province might have jurisdiction in the case, should have been seeking out the individual or individuals who may have signed such documents in order to lay appropriate charges against them.
If, Mr. Speaker, law officers of the crown or law enforcement agencies are, in effect, going to disregard the possibility that someone might have perjured himself or made a false declaration, thus commiting an illegal act, then all this does is to help bring the law into disrepute, to treat it as nought. Surely if there has been a false declaration and a criminal act committed by whoever signed as guarantor, then such situation should be dealt with as a separate matter by the law enforcement agencies. But to hide under the proposition-as I submit is the situation-that the matter is before the courts is, I think, disregarding the consequence to which I have referred.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what exactly is before the courts here. All I know is that this is what the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) said the other day, as reported at page 2481 of Hansard:
The Minister of Justice has already informed the house that this case, involving a passport application to which my hon. friend has referred, is now before the courts. The matter is therefore sub
November 14, 1968

judice at this time, but we expect that the documents in question will become public knowledge-
-during the court case.
I do not want to enter your field, Mr. Speaker, of making a ruling as to whether or not a matter is before the courts or is sub judice. However, I do submit that if the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), the government, or the minister's parliamentary secretary, who again just raised the issue whether this case is sub judice, were really serious in their contention, then the President of the Treasury Board should have raised this point the other day, should have made the necessary order, and this debate should not have been permitted to proceed in any manner at all.
In Beauchesne's fourth edition, Mr. Speaker, there are two references in the index to matters being sub judice. One refers to citation 149 and the other to citation 152. I will deal with citation 152 last because I do not think it is the citation that applies; it alludes to references to the commissioner of taxation, the board of railway commissioners, to judges or the judiciary by way of a personal attack upon the individuals holding those offices; it does not make reference to the issue whether or not a certain case is before the courts.
However, Mr. Speaker, citation 149 does make such reference, where it states:
Besides the prohibitions contained in standing order 35, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:-
(c) refer to any matter on which a judicial decision is pending;-
This citation, Mr. Speaker, does, I think, refer to matters that are sub judice. If the government were serious in putting forward a case to show why these documents should not be produced in response to the motion now before us, then the government should have proceeded further and protected the rules of the house by arguing on a point of order that the matter should not be proceeded with in this manner. The mere fact that passing reference only was made to this point, and this not by way of a point of order, is really an admission on the part of the government that they do not have a sub judice argument.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, what we have is simply an over-infection of the secrecy complex that has been so evident during the current parliament. I suggest there has been an overreaction on the part of ministers of the crown to the declaration of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that if there are any cabinet leaks
Passport Applications
the minister responsible will lose his job; that if there are any conversations conducted by cabinet ministers with members of the press gallery or others concerning internal matters or matters brought before caucus, then heaven help the individual, he will no longer be a cabinet minister. I am sure that the President of the Treasury Board, normally a very generous and helpful minister, is thinking along this line and has interpreted, I submit in a wrong way, the Prime Minister's edict about secrecy. The course adopted does, I submit, reflect this secrecy concept of government, that things that normally should be revealed are not revealed.
I am not going to embark upon a discussion of whether or not we should be secrecy oriented or oriented toward the public disclosure of matters, unless the situation demands otherwise. The fact that the government did not bother to argue the matter procedurally under citation 149 is, I think, an indication of how shallow and shaky is their ground for claiming that this matter is before the courts and sub judice.
The other aspect to which I referred, Mr. Speaker, which was the continued lack of assiduousness in prosecuting or ferreting out individuals who apparently make false declarations, indicates the government's condoning of an act that tends to disregard the full force of the law, and thereby participates in the process of bringing the law into disrepute. After all, Mr. Speaker, if the government does not prosecute persons who make false statements of this kind, then others of like mind who seek to get a passport by false means may be able to do so with impunity, as a result of which our whole process of law would tend to break down. The simple exposure of documents to parliament and to the public would assist immeasurably in promoting proper enforcement of the law.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
Before I close my remarks I hope you will permit me to wander slightly outside the rules of debate, since what I am about to talk about does not come precisely within the subject matter of the motion. We have been referring to passports and, in a secondary way, to the passport office. I agree with the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness), that the people in the passport office have an accommodating, friendly, and generous approach toward the public when dealing with passport applications. The members of the office are overworked and do not receive credit for the amount of work they do. That casts certain reflections on the government

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
service, and the appropriate minister might keep this in mind when considering how much money ought to be allocated to the passport office.
To take a case in point, recently, when Hercules aircraft were to fly to Biafra and transport various commodities, the people in the passport office gave friendly and generous help. Because the government could not make up its mind, some of them had to go back to the office in the middle of the night at a moment's notice. They did so willingly, although no doubt with some grumbling after having gone home and settled down for the night. They had the required passports and documents ready in short order, even though barely a moment's notice had been given to them.
I have made these remarks, well aware they may be out of order but aware also of your generosity, sir, and your feelings of humanity toward the public service. I thank Your Honour for permitting me to make these remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Woolliams) negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house wish to proceed to the next notice of motion?


Frank Howard: Could that stand, Mr. Speaker. May we call it seven o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: The time being seven o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At seven o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
1. That Schedule A to the Customs Tariff be amended by striking out tariff items 20925-1, 21045-1, 22001-1 and the heading thereto, 22002-1 and the heading thereto, 22003-1 and the heading thereto, 26325-1, 40938-1, 42761-1 and the heading thereto, 42762-1 and the heading thereto, 44043-1, 44047-1,	47600-1,	56400-1, and 69315-1 and the
enumeration of goods and the rates of duty set opposite each of those items, and by inserting therein the following items, enumerations of goods and rates of duty:
The Chairman:: The text is attached to Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, October 22, 1968.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I am pleased to have the opportunity of presenting the Customs Tariff resolution to this committee. I presume that hon. members have before them, as I have, a copy of the ways and means budget resolution of October 22.
As you will have noted, Mr. Chairman, the tariff resolution is a formidable affair of some 195 pages. I think it is fair to say, however, that the committee's task in examining this massive resolution should be less onerous than might appear at first sight. This is because the first ten sections, comprising 150 pages, represent the reintroduction in this parliament of proposals which were placed before the twenty seventh parliament over a year ago, and which were subjected to detailed examination in committees of that parliament, either the committee of the whole or the finance committee, and in fact have been in force on a provisional basis for some time.
In this connection it will be recalled that in the budget speech of October 22 the Minister of Finance referred to three sets of tariff resolutions which had been tabled by his predecessor in the last parliament, and which he was reintroducing. Probably it would be well for me to repeat, now, part of the explanation which the minister provided then, for it is relevant to this stage of our discussions.
The first set of resolutions involves for the most part what might be described as housekeeping tariff amendments. They were introduced originally in the budget presented on June 1, 1967. They reappear as sections 1, 2 and 3 on pages 4 to 8 in the general resolution before us. I believe the three resolutions just mentioned were considered in the committee of the whole in the last parliament.
The third, and by far the largest, of these sets of resolutions were those tabled on November 6, 1967, implementing Canada's commitments, other than those on chemicals
November 14, 1968

and plastics, under the Kennedy round agreements. The rates set out in these resolutions came into effect on a provisional basis on January 1 of this year. They were referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs and after a series of public hearings the committee recommended them to the house for favourable consideration.
Parliament, however, was dissolved before any of these resolutions could be enacted. An order in council was therefore passed on April 25 under authority of section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, continuing in effect the proposed reductions in duty. The Minister of Finance announced at the time that collections of the increases in customs duties proposed on a few imported products were being suspended, but that it was the government's intention to ask the next parliament to enact legislation implementing both the reductions and increases, effective from the dates originally proposed in the resolutions. The resolution now before the committee will, if enacted into law, have this effect.
Those sections of the resolution which begin on page 153 relate to chemicals and plastics. They are new in the sense that they have not previously been before the house, and in that they are to come into force not later than January 1, 1969. As the Minister of Finance pointed out in the budget speech, they flow from the Tariff Board report on chemicals, under reference 120. The first volume of the board's report was tabled in this house in June 1966. The revised volume formed the broad basis for our Kennedy round negotiations on chemicals and plastics.
During the Kennedy round negotiations Canada undertook to introduce the concessions offered on chemicals and plastics not later than July 1. It was not, in fact, possible to implement the proposed new chemical and plastics schedule by that date. Accordingly, it was agreed with our trading partners that Canada could delay putting these concessions into effect until not later than January 1 next. It was also agreed, as an interim measure, that Canada would make reductions in the rates of duty on a number of chemicals and plastics in terms of the present tariff nomenclature. These were made by order in council for the period July 1 to December 31.
As to the tariff structure followed by the board, the industry proposed and the board recommended the adoption of the so-called Brussels nomenclature for most of its new tariff schedule. Both the industry and the board considered it was particularly suitable
Ways and Means
in a field of such complexity as chemicals and plastics. This nomenclature is used by the major trading countries, with the exception of the United States; it is a system for classifying goods under headings which are grouped into chapters and sections.
An integral part of the Brussels nomenclature are rules and notes which clarify the scope of the various headings. The board recommended that these rules and notes be adapted for Canadian use and that the Customs Tariff provide that the governor in council may prescribe such rules and notes. This is provided for in section 12 of the resolution on page 153.
When the tariff items relating to chemicals and plastics were referred to the Tariff Board for study the board was directed not to make any general changes in preferential margins- for example, in the difference between the British preferential and most favoured nation rates of duty. Generally speaking, at the time the board submitted its report chemicals of a kind produced in Canada were subject to duty at 15 per cent British preferential and 20 per cent most favoured nation, and those not produced at rates of free B.P. and 15 per cent M.F.N. Chemicals moved from the "made in Canada" category to the "not made in Canada" category or vice-versa on the basis of administrative rulings by the Department of National Revenue.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The schedule proposed by the board is very long. On an extensive list of chemicals produced in Canada identified by name, the recommended rates were 10 per cent under the British preferential tariff and 15 per cent under the most favoured nation tariff, with rates of free British preferential and 15 per cent most favoured nation on a number of residual tariff items providing for chemicals not produced in Canada. The structure proposed by the board, particularly with regard to the British preferential tariff, would be less flexible than the present tariff.
As the minister said on October 22, the board's proposals have given rise to many representations urging a less rigid system, and it seemed to the government that both the present flexibility and the results intended by the board could in fact be achieved. Accordingly the resolution proposes that a 10 per cent British preferential duty, instead of the free rate proposed by the board, be established for certain items in chapters 915, 928 and 929 of the schedule beginning on page

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
155. Under section 11 parliament is being asked to grant authority to the governor in council to lower this duty from time to time. This authority would be similar to that set out in the Customs Act to reduce or remove duties on articles used in Canada manufactures.
A somewhat similar situation exists with regard to certain plastics. Here also, in the light of additional information brought forward after the report on reference 120 was received, the Minister of Finance decided to depart somewhat from the board's recommendations, as was explained in the budget speech, in order to meet representations to the effect that the board's proposals provided no assurance of protection when new products are made in Canada.
I should like to make only three points regarding these modifications. First, they are within the scope of the Kennedy round commitments negotiated at Geneva. Second, they succeed, I think, in meeting in large part criticisms which Canadian chemical producers made about rigidities inherent in the board's original draft schedule. Third, they are consistent with the intent of the board's recommendations.
I referred earlier to the fact that the Kennedy round tariff resolution was examined, and favourably reported on, during the last session of parliament by the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs. I had the honour of being chairman of that committee during its hearings on these Kennedy round tariff changes. I would like to pay tribute at this time to the members who served on the committee during those hearings, for their serious study of the changes and their courtesy and co-operation at that time.
In its report that committee recommended the subject matter of the resolution to the house, subject to these comments. I should like to inform the house that the government has taken positive action on these suggestions, and I should like to comment briefly on each of them before resuming my seat.
The first comment or recommendation of the committee's report to the house was that great care should be taken in drafting Canadian legislation based on the new international anti-dumping code, and that the antidumping bill be referred to the committee. Both parts of this recommendation have been acted upon, and I have no doubt that the house will shortly receive a report on this

matter from the standing committee on finance.
The committee's second comment related to non-tariff barriers. Dealing with non-tariff trade barriers is, of course, a long and difficult task but, as recommended, the government has and is intensifying its efforts to deal with and counteract any adverse effects on Canadian trade from present and future barriers of this sort. To this end we have sought and obtained the co-operation and help of Canadian producers and exporters.
In its third comment the committee recommended that close attention be paid to the operation of the adjustment assistance and the machinery programs to see that their aims are in fact being met. I am glad to report to this committee of the house that in respect of each of these programs the record to date appears satisfactory. As regards the adjustment assistance program a matter for particular gratification is that as yet no one has made out a case for assistance on the grounds of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury, as a result of Kennedy round cuts in the Canadian tariff. There is now every reason to expect that it will not be necessary to use the $10 million authorized for direct loans to assist in cases of injury in the current calendar year. On the other hand, a substantial number of applications have been approved, or are under active consideration, relating to technical assistance or loan guarantees in connection with projects to modernize or expand Canadian productive facilities to take advantage of new or enlarged export opportunities.
The machinery program appears to be operating smoothly, and to the general satisfaction of Canadian users and manufacturers of machinery. In view of the concern which was expressed in some quarters last fall about administrative problems inherent in the program, it is remarkable and reassuring that it now seems to be taken almost for granted. The Minister of Finance has informed me that apart from participating as a member of cabinet in the consideration and approval each week of a machinery remission order proposed by his colleague, the Minister of Industry, he now seldom receives comment on the program.
There are, however, two aspects of the program about which I should like to say a word. The first is the matter of appeals, which was discussed at some length by the finance committee in January. Provision was
November 14, 1968

made that recommendations of the machinery and equipment advisory board may be appealed by a dissatisfied party to a review board, which will be set up if and when required. However, to date no requests for such appeals have been received, and consequently no review boards have had to be established.
My other comment relates to the scope of the program, what is included in it and what is excluded. In this connection you will recall that its scope was defined largely in terms of machinery and equipment which formerly were classified under 18 pre-existing tariff items. During the past year the predecessor of the Minister of Finance, the present Minister of Finance and also the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, have received a number of representations regarding the scope of the machinery program, some suggesting that it be expanded to include additional kinds of machinery, and others suggesting that certain products be excluded from it. They decided not to propose any changes at this time. However, it is their intention that the program be reviewed from time to time in the light of developments. Changes may be proposed in some future budget, if deemed desirable in the light of domestic and international considerations.
This concludes my remarks at this stage, Mr. Chairman. If it is your wish to call each of the 20 sections of the resolution individually, I will be glad to add further comments on each section as it is called, either at this stage or later stages of debate, comments on what these tariff changes will mean and have already meant to the positive development of Canada's trade to what I think is the general benefit of our country.


Mr. Monteith:: Mr. Chairman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has outlined the general intent of the resolutions, which deal with certain propositions introduced in the June 1 budget of last year and also on November 30. Fundamentally the meat of the thing concerns the Kennedy round discussions. He mentioned that parliament was dissolved and as a consequence threw the gearing of these things out of kilter. It certainly was dissolved. We find all these things are heaped up. I am quite serious when I say this government is trying to indicate that we are not getting enough business done, but here it is trying to shoulder all this stuff, which goes back to June 1, 1967, into one brief fall session. However, sir, the opposition still has some rights in this house.
Ways and Means
I would comment on one other statement the parliamentary secretary made. He was chairman of the committee at that time. He made a very able chairman and I would like to compliment him on his conduct during those committee hearings. Indeed, I think he was the most able chairman with whom I ever served on a committee. But as a consequence of having sat on that committee I am sure he will appreciate that I personally still have some reservations, and I think honestly so.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Having said that, I should like to suggest that as a result of these lengthy committee hearings last January I sincerely hope the Kennedy round adjustments will mean freer trade for Canada, and that trade will not be all one-sided. Canada should not only be importing more from outside; it should be exporting more to other countries.
The parliamentary secretary said that the Kennedy round neglected to take into consideration non-tariff barriers, which to me are most important. Let me give one small example. As I understand it, the United States copyright act is much more severe regarding productions going into the United States than our Copyright Act is in respect of productions coming into Canada. This situation must be considered seriously. My understanding is that the United States copyright act is almost prohibitive, so far as Canadian productions are concerned.
I have not been a member of the committee since it began studying the white paper on anti-dumping, which was produced by the government, but I gather that the proposed anti-dumping amendments will provide less protection to Canadian industry than now exists. At least the evidence points to this situation. The new anti-dumping legislation is not going to protect our industry to the extent it is now protected, and under the conditions which now exist we have cause for complaint.
We have heard certain rumblings, and 1 assume it is safe to say that is all they are at the moment, from the other side of the border which we'must consider of interest in respect of this whole Kennedy round procedure. Other countries and nationalities are interested in this, but in view of our tremendous trade with the United States-and I admit this is a two-way street-we must face the fact that more products come into this country than go to the United States. This is what disturbs me.

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
It is my hope that when the Kennedy round suggestions are finally implemented we will have greater export trade, or an export trade equal to our import trade. We have heard reports emanating from our great neighbour to the south that the United States will not be happy about the implementation of some of these Kennedy round adjustments.
I trust there will not be any retaliation in this area.
It is not my intention to say anything further at this stage. As the parliamentary secretary has said, there are many pages in this budget resolution. I could not deal with them all in detail at this time. We shall wait to see the bill when it is presented. Let me again express my sincere hope and prayer that this measure will accomplish what the Canadian government thinks it will accomplish, although I have some personal reservations.


Mr. Saltsman:: On this occasion, Mr. Chairman, looking at the resolution based on the Kennedy round, I think it is appropriate to point out the great opportunities opened to this country as a result of free trade. Let me point out also the great dangers inherent, unless we are prepared to take a number of steps in harmony with trade liberalization.
This party has always favoured a freeing of international trade in the interests not only of this country but those of the international community. We believe that the liberalization of trade will bring the nations of the world closer together, enabling us to join in opportunities in the future. The concern felt on this side of the house under present circumstances arises from the fact that to a very large extent Canadians are not masters in their own houses, so far as industry is concerned. Much of our industry is under United States domination, with the result that we have less opportunity to pursue foreign markets than we might have. The capital and know-how which has come our way from south of the border has not been priceless. This has not been just manna from above, but has been accompanied by serious implications affecting our sovereignty, and our ability to be productive.
When we consider raw materials we must obviously realize there has been little or no problem in the past. The raw materials exported by Canada have generally entered the countries of our major buyers either free of duty or with relatively little duty. In the United States particularly, where many of our raw materials are needed, the situation

has been such as to permit the entry of large quantities of our natural resources. This situation will not change very much as a result of the present situation.
Our real difficulty arises because of the nature of secondary manufacturing in this country and our inability to ship these goods around the world. Lower tariffs in themselves will not solve the problem. Nor will free trade in itself provide a solution. This is true particularly because our industry is dominated by international corporations whose purpose is to serve the best interests of the corporate structure, rather than the best interests of this country. This means that even where opportunities exist for export we are not always able to take advantage of them because a corporation may find itself in competition with one of its branches in a foreign country.
The Watkins task force, commissioned by the government to look into this matter of foreign ownership and its effects, has pointed out the very great dangers inherent in foreign ownership of industry. The suggestions it made to the government have not been followed. The task force suggested several things the government has not seen fit to accept.
It might be instructive to look at some of the areas in which we have had either free or liberalized trade, in order to see what has happened under free trade circumstances. One of the areas worth examining is the farm machinery industry. We have had free trade in respect of farm machinery for a long time. What has happened as a result of free trade? Canada was a great manufacturing nation of farm machinery. We had every reason to believe that we could become even greater and that the balance would tip in our favour. Instead of that, over the period in which there has been free trade in farm machinery our exports of farm machinery have been about one-third of our imports. We have not really benefited substantially from free trade. If we look at the figures for 1963 we see that the exports in that year were $104 million as against $293 million for imports.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There was recently a strike at one of the plants of a very large Canadian manufacturer of agricultural equipment. The question involved was that of wage parity. The argument of the company was that it could not meet wage parity with the United States, for a number of reasons. One of the arguments of
November 14, 19G8

the company was the lower productivity in Canada. The company commissioned a report by a reputable firm in the west. That report was supposed to document the company's position as to why in this country they could not meet wage parity with the United States.
This was after many, many years of free trade. One would have assumed that the free movement of goods back and forth across the border would have meant that wage parity could have been achieved, because there was no reason for lower productivity in Canada vis-a-vis the United States. If it had been a question of difference in transportation costs, the people involved were quite prepared to accept this as one of the limitations, but the problem went away beyond just the question of transportation costs.
A Canadian who read the report prepared for the company, and their arguments, must have felt enormously depressed because of what companies such as this had done to the Canadian economy. In effect, they had concentrated all their modern plants, their automated plants, in the United States during the free trade period, and they had concentrated all their labour intensive plants in Canada. They were simply saying to Canadians: You will either accept lower wages than those of American workers, or we are not interested in locating our plants in Canada. They were saying, in effect:	You must permanently
accept a lower standard of living and give us a premium, or we are not prepared to invest further in this country and bring you up to the same level and standard as American workers.
This is a shocking indictment of free trade in the farm machinery industry-and this was a Canadian company. This plainly illustrates how much importance can be attached to the integrity of the owners of such companies. It is a shocking indictment of what happens under free trade. I bring this matter to the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite so they may realize that free trade is not a panacea in itself, that unless we have active government intervention in our economy, unless there are specific guide lines to international corporations in this country, every Canadian will be the loser. Free trade will not automatically give us a higher standard of living or even a more rational structure unless the government makes an effort to ensure that these companies operate in the long term, best interests of Canadians.
If we have to pay a bonus for each of the industries operating under free trade, the lib-
Ways and Means
eralization of trade will prove to be a disaster to this country. If we stop and think about it for a moment, we will understand why they are exacting this bonus. When an investor has a choice of obtaining a return in his own country as against a similar return in another country, even assuming that both countries have stable governments, are politically compatible and their laws are reasonable, he asks for a premium to move outside his own area of political jurisdiction. Since much of this industry is becoming more and more oriented to the United States market and to the needs of American corporations, that premium will be asked of every industry in this country operating under free trade, if left to its own devices.
Let us look at the oil industry. It is sometimes pointed out that the rationalization of the oil industry in the west has been of great benefit to Canada. I think some doubt must be expressed about just how beneficial it has been. We are still a net importer of oil. Much of our productive capacity is running away below its potential. In some areas this industry is running at about 35 per cent of the capacity of our wells. We are still importing oil, rather than having our wells operate at the volume at which they are capable.
An arrangement has been made between Canada and the United States for the movement of oil back and forth across the border, but this arrangement has been largely dictated by the needs of the international oil companies to suit their purposes and their interests, and to some extent to suit the foreign policy interests of the United States rather than the specific interests of Canada. It is my understanding that in respect of the policy we now have regarding oil there was some very substantial, behind-the-scenes arm twisting. This was during the period of office of a Conservative government. I understand that we obtained whatever arrangements we have at the moment only by threatening to build a pipe line to Montreal. The threat of building a pipe line to Montreal and taking Canadian oil at that point was one of the ways in which we got the oil companies to give us larger entry quotas into the United States. But even those entry quotas into the United States carried a price tag on them. We then had to take offshore oil, under agreed conditions, at the port of Montreal. Despite the precarious nature of these arrangements we still have a deficit in trade in respect of oil, of all things.
Let us consider another product with regard to which Canada is supposed to have

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
an enormous advantage in terms of production. I refer to nickel. Recently there has been a shortage of nickel, which has affected foreign as well as domestic users. Our domestic producers were not able to get enough nickel for their own use. At that time increased shipments of nickel were being made out of the country in raw form. It was quite apparent-and there is on the record a statement to this effect by the then minister of trade and commerce-that the needs of the foreign buyer for raw material would be met first before the needs of the Canadian manufacturer; that this was really the No. 1 priority of the Department of Trade and Commerce.
In the long run this policy has meant we have been condemned to be sellers of raw material and to be obligated to deliver raw material rather than develop in this country our own secondary industry. What I have said about nickel is probably equally true of copper in periods of shortage. I believe the time has come when with regard to products of this type the Canadian government must establish priorities and stabilize prices for our industry, in order to stimulate and encourage them in the secondary processes of raw materials. Under free trade this will not happen.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
In recent years, since the introduction of the Canada-U.S. auto agreement, the government has taken great pride in pointing out the increased export of automobiles and parts to the United States under that agreement. Yet in this area also, while admitting there has been some improvement in the balance of trade in respect of automobiles and automobile parts, progress has not really been very rapid. Many of the advantages that we hoped to gain from this agreement have not been fully realized. Consumer prices and production facilities have not increased as rapidly as they should have, and we had every reason to believe that both of those things should have happened. I believe there are reports in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which indicate that under this agreement productivity in Canada is as high as in the United States. Again there is a tremendous resistance on the part of the automobile companies, which are almost entirely American, to grant wage parity in Canada; and even if this were done, the fact that the value of our dollar is somewhat lower than the value of the U.S. dollar indicates that we are
a long way from wage parity with our U.S. neighbour.
With regard to trade with the United States, we find that according to the 1967 figures respecting motor vehicles and parts we still have an imbalance of trade with that country amounting to almost half a million dollars. This is an enormous imbalance of trade, and although it is somewhat better than it was a few years ago we are a long way away from reaching the objectives which we felt we were entitled to reach. The difficulty in the Canadian economy is that so much of the development that goes on in this country is designed to meet the best needs of international corporations, usually U.S. corporations, rather than the best needs of the Canadian people. I believe we have a right to say to these companies: We are happy to have you in this country and we think there are opportunities, but there are opportunities for us as well; we believe you can do well but you have to recognize our best interests at the same time as you are here making your profits. Surely this is not too much to ask. Yet when we take a look at the range of government policies, there is very little in them to move industry in this direction.
A while ago there was some talk of voluntary guide lines. At the same time it was said they would be completely useless. There was also some talk of perhaps improving those guide lines, but to what extent we do not know. Yet I believe we should not be talking in vague generalities about guide lines. This government should know what the needs of the Canadian people are, they should know what the problems are-everybody else seems to-and they should insist that we get the best arrangements possible to fulfil the needs of this country. Free trade could very well result in the loss of industry or the slowing down of industrial development in this country. It is unfortunate but true that much of the industrial development that has taken place in this country has taken place because of the tariff structure. Whatever can be said about the tariff structure, it still must be said that it has had the effect of inducing some industrial development that might not have taken place otherwise. This is not to argue for the retention of the tariff structure which I think runs counter to modern thought and the long term needs of the country, but it is to point out that that tariff structure did serve some purpose and its removal could create grave dangers.

November 14, 1968

Recently I received a letter from an industry in my area which had anticipated that certain manufacturing facilities would be set up in this country. Following the conclusion of the Kennedy round and the implementation of legislation flowing from it, that industry which spoke of locating here does not now think it is necessary to do so. It believes now that it would be just as easy for them to ship from their head office in the United States.
Free trade in itself is not an answer, and I believe Canada needs what the Watkins report called a new national policy. There was a national policy in this country years and years ago, and whatever its defects may have been it did serve to create this nation and to form the general outlines of Canada. I should like to read from the Watkins report what it has to say about a national policy:
The old National Policy served Canada in its day, as an instrument of nation-building and a means of facilitating economic growth. The challenges have changed and a new National Policy is required. The nation has been built, but its sovereignty must be protected and its independence maintained. A diversified economy has been created, but its efficiency must be improved and its capacity for autonomous growth increased.
What should those new instruments of national policy be? One of them, as suggested by the Watkins report, is a Canada development corporation, a corporation owned by the people of Canada that would step in to fill the void that exists in many areas and would ensure that much of the future growth and development of this country is in Canadian hands. The Watkins report called for a state trading agency to ensure that we do not lose sales to overseas countries because of United States policy, and of extraterritorial procedures of the United States.
We really do have a state trading company now in Canada, but it is not being used for that purpose. I think the Canadian Commercial Corporation could really do the job if it were given proper terms of reference. We have to be more willing to use crown corporations, to make up for the deficiencies of international corporations, and to challenge these corporations when they do not act in the best interests of this country. We should use adjustments boards to try to rationalize much of the industry in this country that finds itself in difficulties. Some of the industry that will be hurt will not be able to reorganize itself on an individual basis. It may be that these individual companies may have to be organized within the framework of the
Ways and Means
entire industry, and assistance and encouragement would have to be given to an industry to develop a more rational and efficient structure than is the case at present.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
But above everything else, Mr. Chairman, this country must have full employment policies. Unless there are full employment policies, the adjustment will be difficult and crucial, particularly so in some areas of Canada that are now suffering higher than average unemployment. Under full employment many possibilities exist and the stresses and strains of moving into modern ways, of accepting the challenges that are inherent in freer trade, can be met. But when you have higher than necessary unemployment as exists in this country, free trade might have the effect of exacerabting the situation. Therefore, I think it is equally incumbent upon the government, when it is talking free trade and introducing resolutions regarding free trade, to indicate to us that they will introduce full employment policies.
It is difficult to ask for this kind of commitment from the parliamentary secretary, particularly so when the Minister of Finance has recently brought in a budget that negates any attempt at full employment. The minister's budget, in the face of this resolution, has been a disaster. It is as though he had no idea that such a thing as free trade were going on; it is as though he had no idea of the problems that might be created under free trade conditions; as though he closed his eyes and turned his back on the problem before him.
However, this House of Commons will during the debates in the coming days try to focus the nation's attention on this problem, and to indicate that while we welcome the increased opportunity for reduction of tariffs around the world, we are very much aware of the other policies that must be concurrent with such liberalization of trade. We intend to press for such policies.


Mr. Perraull:: When we are engaged in a discussion of trade policies and tariff policies, Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps it is appropriate to say something about the immense trading potential which exists in the Pacific rim nations. Those of us who come from British Columbia, owe a great deal of our prosperity to our bourgeoning trade with Japan and other nations in the Pacific. We are perhaps, more conscious of the growing potential of trade with the Pacific rim nations than are the people of some other provinces in this

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
country. We are aware of the vast potential, and we want to remind other people in Canada that while trade with the United States is very important, and while trade with Europe is very important, while it is appropriate to discuss matters such as the ultimate creation of a North Atlantic free trade area, we must not forget the great potential of the Pacific. We must adopt progressive trade policies in respect of nations occupying positions on that vast rim, a rim which contains nations which represent trading potential even greater than that of Europe.
I know there are Canadians concerned with the competitive aspects of trade with nations like Japan, but in the view of most people who live in western Canada-British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta-a vigorous effort should be made to develop even greater two-way trade with Japan and other Pacific nations. Canadian-Japanese two way trade may pass the $1,000 million mark this year. It appears inevitable, and this may come as a surprise to some members, that it will be only a few years before Japan replaces Great Britain as our second largest trading partner.
We in western Canada have found an outlet for many of our mineral products in the booming Japanese market. Yet, at the same time, we are aware of the fact that we have no monopoly on that Japanese market. While, we can congratulate ourselves on the great two way trade in which Canada and the Japanese nation are now engaged, we, as Canadians, must be concerned about the future of that trade. There are some Canadians who believe that Japanese trade holds out a great threat to Canadian jobs and the economy of our country. But I would remind this house, Mr. Chairman, that not only have exports to Japan been continuously growing to the benefit of British Columbia, Alberta and the western provinces-yes, and to the east as well-but they have always exceeded our imports from Japan by the rate of about three to two.
Reviewing these exports we find that grains, especially wheat and foodstuffs, make up one third of the total. Metals and metallic minerals, with copper ore leading, and uranium, the most important newcomer, make up one quarter; and lumber and pulp and paper make up a further sixth. Thus, these commodities form 75 per cent of our exports. It is interesting to note that included in the remaining 25 per cent are manufactured
[Mr. PerraultJ
goods such as machinery, books and pharmaceutical products. Potash for fertilizer, which is important to our friends in Saskatchewan, is already an addition to our list of exports, and oil is another important product.
The statement has been made that since Canada's exports to Japan are predominantly raw materials, with wheat the largest single item, few jobs are created by this trade. Some of us in the west have attempted to contradict this sort of propaganda with respect to Japanese trade which comes from some other parts of Canada. This restricted view of Japanese trade and jobs may be true -as far as it goes, but it hides much of the job-creating effect of, for example, agricultural production. The actual sowing and reaping of wheat may require the labour of relatively few people, but wheat production requires materials produced in many other industries which give rise to further employment. For example it requires machinery for preparing the ground, sowing the seed, cutting and threshing the crop.
Wheat production also requires the use of fertilizer, transportation and storage as well as the use of banking facilities. Labour is needed to supply each of these factors and, to go back one stage further in the process of production, more labour is required to build the factories to manufacture the machines, and so on. Thus the total labour, direct and indirect, needed for wheat production is considerable, when the labour required at each stage is added up. A recent survey placed at over 75,000 the number of Canadians directly required to produce the whole of Canada's exports to Japan. And there are many other jobs associated indirectly with this valuable trade.
We in western Canada want all Canadians to know what this developing trade has meant to us in terms of prosperity. One of the reasons the west is one of Canada's most rapidly growing regions is because we have always had an open attitude toward trade. When we hear people in this house talk in terms of high tariffs and protectionism, adopting the attitude that we cannot lower tariff barriers because somehow it may endanger our economic security, we in the west simply say we have been competing in world markets for years. We have been selling our goods in non-protected world markets while we have had to buy many of our manufactured products from tariff-protected eastern industries. Let me assure you that in the process we have been competing very successfully, and we are doing very well.
November 14, 1968

Most people in western Canada, regardless of political party, now believe that Canadian technology, Canadian ingenuity and Canadian inventiveness have reached the stage when we can compete very successfully with many of the so-called sophisticated economies in this world. When we hear people in this House of Commons say: "Be careful about touching those tariff barriers; it may endanger jobs", we tell them, Mr. Chairman, that one way to become more competitive and to provide larger incomes for our people is by realizing the economies of scale that are possible only if we have larger markets in which to sell Canadian products. That is the key. If Canadian industry is able to sell in world markets expanded because tariff barriers are not as high as they are at the present time, we will have longer production runs and more productivity per worker. This is one way to increase the incomes of the people of this country.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
While long term contracts and joint financing provided by the Japanese have been responsible in large measure for the prosperity of British Columbia's mining industry and other industries in western Canada, Canada is not the only source of raw materials. This, Mr. Chairman, is a fact that we in this house and the people of the country must realize.
For example, Mr. Chairman, there are significant developments in Australia. That country now provides 40 per cent of Japanese coal requirements, while Canada provides 5 per cent-although the new coal contracts will improve our share of this market. Although Canada represents a large potential source of iron ore for Japanese industry, we have no automatic market there. Some people think we have. India, Chile, Malaysia, Peru and Australia are major suppliers. India supplies 21 per cent, Chile 16.9 per cent, Malaysia 11 per cent, Peru 9 per cent and Australia 7 per cent. In the year 1966, the last available figure, Canada supplied only 3.4 per cent.
The immediate future, Mr. Chairman, is one of increased competition for this country in regard to Japanese trade, perhaps a smaller proportion of the market between now and 1975, from 1.9 million tons of iron ore this year to 1.4 million tons seven years from now. Competition will become tougher because our rivals are investing in handling equipment and port facilities that can accommodate the new generation of mammoth ocean freighters.
Ways and Means
It is to be hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the government will continue to accelerate its efforts to improve ports in western Canada in order to help not only this nation but especially the products of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to find easier and more efficient access to markets in the Pacific.
Canada is in a position, Mr. Chairman, to sell larger amounts of copper and other minerals to the Japanese market. Today the two commonwealth countries of Canada and Australia supply about one third of Japan's need for copper concentrate. Again, Mr. Chairman, competition looms in the form of Chile and the Philippines.
The point is that the Japanese market is vitally important to all Canadians. Many products that the Japanese have been able to purchase from Canada have been the result of two way trade. Yes, and they have spent money in Ontario and Quebec buying sophisticated equipment of various types. Some of the equipment has been computer equipment. All sorts of materials are being purchased in Ontario and Quebec with the dollars earned by the Japanese through their sales to Canada. That is why western Canadians say that this trade is vital to all of Canada.
Although the Japanese market is important to all Canadians, Mr. Chairman, it cannot be taken for granted; and neither can trade with the rest of this vast Pacific market. Early this year a group of economists met at Tokyo to discuss Pacific trade and development. Papers were presented by Japanese, American, Australian and New Zealand representatives, each of whom set out the role and objectives of their respective countries in the matter of developing Pacific trade. At this conference Canada was represented by three outstanding economists, one of them from Carleton University here in Ottawa. They were the well known Harry Johnson; Ted English of Carle-ton and Bruce Aitkinson of the University of Alberta. Conferences of this kind can be of immense importance to Canada, Mr. Chairman, and are deserving of the close attention and co-operation of this government.
In western Canada, Mr. Chairman, we believe that we should not divert all our attention to the north Atlantic free trade concept, or the North America free trade concept or the Caribbean area free trade concept when we talk of increasing our trade. Let us not merely send delegations down to South America, as important as those delegations are. Let us send a team of government

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
representatives and representatives from the western and eastern provinces to make a tour of the Pacific rim. Let us send people from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. to find out what kind of potential exists there for trade with Canada.
Under discussion at the Toyko conference- some hon. members know about this-was the possibility of at least an informal Pacific free trade area, a free trade area with vast implications for Canadians. At the January conference our Canadian representatives presented, in part, arguments that the Pacific area is one of the great potential areas for the Canada of tomorrow; and our representatives found some arguments in favour of this informal free trade concept.
Any Pacific free trade area, at least in the immediate future, would at first involve Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. This would be the nucleus. Let us not back away from this concept. Let us not say that somehow it will endanger our sovereignty or that it will destroy Canadian industry. Let us not adopt these introverted, narrow, tunnel vision concepts of trade.
In the kind of world in which we live today, Mr. Chairman, there is no point in scowling at the rest of the world, in saying that we will keep tariff barriers so high that we cannot even see over them. The world is becoming smaller and smaller. It is a world where interdependence will be the key to the future. We have to develop interdependence with the nations that rim the Pacific. They must not be regarded as mysterious lands that have no potential for the products that we in Canada produce. We must not regard it as an area that can take only our basic raw materials, because I do not believe that Canadians want to be hewers of wood and drawers of water exclusively. We are in a position not only to provide raw materials of all kinds from all parts of the nation; we are also in a position to produce sophisticated equipment and the products of secondary industry. We should develop our secondary industry and accelerate exports of them as much as possible.
Canadians, Mr. Chairman, are going to become more and more familiar with the progressive, industrial giant that is modern Japan. We are going to become more and more familiar, I hope, with the potential of the Pacific. Taking Japan as an example, no other country points the way so strongly to the great opportunities for Canadian trade in

the Pacific area. No other country has developed greater initiative toward freer trade in the whole Pacific area. We should joyously and generously enter into discussions to find out how to promote that trade to our mutual benefit.


Mr. McIntosh:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks in connection with the closing statement made by the parliamentary secretary when he spoke about these tariff changes. I do not have his remarks word for word but, paraphrasing them, he said that these amendments would benefit this country.
As a representative from western Canada and of the prairie farmers, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question, and in doing so I draw his attention to the item on page 6 that reads as follows;
Machines and tools, including blades, loaders, rippers, rakes and related operating and controlling gear; all the foregoing for use on internal combustion tractors entitled to entry under tariff item 40938-1:-
Why are these items taken off the free list and now made subject to British preferential tariff of 2 2 per cent, most favoured nation tariff of 15 per cent and general tariff of 35 per cent?
The suggestion made by the two previous speakers in connection with the free entry into Canada of farm machinery is, as far as I am concerned, a joke, and it has been a joke for a number of years. I say that for this reason-and I am going to make a plea to the parliamentary secretary tonight to change the situation that has developed.
There are many members perhaps, Mr. Chairman, who do not realize that it is the responsibility of the Department of Finance to insert these tariff items into the resolution. However, once inserted the interpretation of the items is for the officials of the revenue department. To try to get these two together is an almost impossible task.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
While the parliamentary secretary is looking up that item and getting ready to answer me I wish to say something more about the remarks of the hon. member for Waterloo with regard to free trade and farm machinery. I take it he did not approve of it. He seemed to object of it, saying it was not in the best interests of the country. I wonder if his prairie colleagues in the N.D.P. will support that statement when they go back to their constituencies. I hope they will rise and
November 14, 1968

explain their stand on this issue when they have an opportunity.
I never thought I should agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour but tonight, for the first time, I think he spoke some sort of sense.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I commend hon. members of this house to read his speech and see what he said about the results of producing wheat. I agree 100 per cent with him. As he gains experience his performance in this house will improve.
The old number of the item I am referring to is 409(f) in schedule A. For some reason or other the numbers have been changed and the new item number is 42711-1, found on page 6. There is one change in the new wording where it says, "internal combustion tractors". I do not know why those words were inserted, since I presume all tractors are tractors powered by internal combustion engines.
I wish to refer the parliamentary secretary to three remarks the Minister of Finance made on October 22 when introducing these amendments. On page 1690 of Hansard for October 22 he said:
-the governor in council be given authority to waive, reduce or restore these duties. This procedure will permit a shortening of the list of statutory tariff items in the plastics schedule.
On page 1692 the minister said:
What I am proposing would be the fairest and best, all things considered, including the desirability of not adding to the rate of increase of prices and costs of production.
I do not think that statement is meant to apply directly to agricultural machinery, yet I assume the minister intends that the same principles shall apply to this industry, because agriculture is an industry.
I know I read those statements out of context. When the minister made those three statements I have just referred to he was referring to chemicals and plastics, as the parliamentary secretary said a few moments ago. I submit that the principles enunciated there should apply to agriculture, as well as to any other industry. The principles listed are, first, the one to do with regard to the desirability of not adding to the rate of increase of prices and cost of production and, two, the one covered by the words, "This procedure will permit a shortening of the list of statutory tariff items.. .".
Ways and Means
One of three principles that has been recognized by the parliament of Canada for many years is that farm machinery or equipment should enter this country free of customs duty and excise taxes. I should like the support of hon. members from the prairies on this matter. I ask the government and the parliamentary secretary whether the government intends to follow this premise; will it allow farm machinery or equipment to be used on farms free entry into Canada. Most farmers, and I am sure most hon. members in this house, believe that the provision for such an intention of parliament has been provided for under schedule A, which I referred to a few moments ago.
Among other items in schedule A is found this wording:
All other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery, n.o.p.
For the benefit of hon. members who do not know the meaning of those letters, they stand for the words, "not otherwise provided". I take it that that ought to cover all agricultural machinery and implements not provided in the foregoing-and there is a great big list here.
Officials in the Department of National Revenue for some reason do not agree with this interpretation. They have power to impose duty on those items, which I am sure parliament intended to allow in duty free. The difficulty or controversy arises from the interpretation of two expressions, the first of which is "agricultural machinery", and the other "agricultural implements".
I think most of us will admit that in this day and age there is not one piece of machinery, or any one implement that is used on the farm that could not be used for some other purpose, if the need arises. This is the point that the officials seem to be trying to stress. When an application is submitted to them, the officials challenge the entry of the item that is applied for on the grounds that it could be used for some other purpose. They do not allow it to enter duty free.
I ask, does the minister believe in the principles he enunciated in the three statements I referred to a few moments ago? Does he believe in the desirability of not adding to the rate of increase of prices and cost of production, and the shortening of the list of statutory tariff items? I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that both the minister's principles would be served and justice to the farmer would be served if there were a slight change

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
in the wording of the tariff I have referred to.
I suggest that where the wording now is, "agricultural implements" and "agricultural machinery, n.o.p.", it ought to be changed to read, "all equipment, apparatus, ^ machines and implements for agricultural use".
If the parliamentary secretary will agree to that change I shall sit down and save the time of the committee. Otherwise I shall continue with my remarks. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might indicate now whether he accepts my suggestion.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Perhaps the hon. member may wish to continue after he hears what I am about to say. Though I understand the motives behind his suggestions I am not in a position personally to accept his proposal. First of all I think the item he referred to in the proposed Customs Tariff and the preceding item are linked with our Kennedy round negotiations, and the agreement that came out of those international negotiations. Though my hon. friend's aims are certainly desirable, the changing in the wording he has in mind would not be consistent with the agreements with which we are involved.
My friend was asking about item 42711-1, if I am not mistaken?
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes, number 42711-1.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This is a new item providing for rates of 2-| per cent British preferential, and 15 per cent M.F.N. for the front end loaders which are being excluded from item 40938-1, the preceding item. With the coming into effect on January 1, 1968, of the new machinery program provided for under item 42700-1, item 42611-1 is being deleted, so that these machines will be dutiable under the proposed item 42700-1 at the same rates but subject to remission in appropriate circumstances. Item 42711-1 thus merely ensured that for the period June 2 to December 31, 1967, inclusive, front-end loaders were dutiable at machinery program rates rather than at 10 per cent B.P. and 22J per cent M.F.N.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sure the explanation given by the parliamentary secretary will not be looked on with favour by the farmers of Canada. This is not a new item. The piece of paper I have in my hand is over 20 years old, and farm machinery was allowed duty-free into Canada at that time. However, there will be plenty of time in which to continue this discussion. I am more than ever convinced that I have to try to impress on the government and on members of this house the need

to get this one item changed under 409F, or at least to get some definition of the terms used upon which everyone will agree.
Am I right in my assumption that it was, and is, parliament's intention that agricultural machinery and implements intended for farm use be allowed into Canada duty free? I contend I am right in making such an assumption. X shall refer again to schedule A. I have read the item which refers to agricultural implements and machinery. For many years the people of this country assumed there was no difficulty whatsoever about getting agricultural implements into Canada duty free. I say it was the intention of parliament in those days that they should be admitted duty free, and that this intention has not changed.
I will refer the committee to items 409N 409-0 and 409-Q. These items all refer to goods which are allowed entry into Canada free of excise tax and customs duty. Item 409-0 refers to equipment for generating electric power when used for farm purposes only. Item 409-Q deals with auxiliary and internal combustion engines when attached to agricultural implements or machinery. Another in this group of items refers to electrical motors incorporated in or attached to agricultural implements or machinery. These items were not normally recognized as equipment or apparatus designed for farm purposes, or at least this was not the case when they were first placed on the schedule. But the articles mentioned were allowed free entry when used for agricultural purposes. I submit this establishes that the intention of parliament was that agricultural machinery or implements for farm use should be allowed free entry. On the basis of these examples it won;cl seem to me that the intent of parliament was obvious j it was to assist farmers to keep down their cost of production so that they could compete in world markets. I believe this is still the intent of parliament today, but it is not recognized by the civil servants.
In case the minister or the parliamentary secretary should charge us with failure to make representations to the government on this matter at an earlier stage, let me point out that this issue has been raised on several occasions. It was last raised, to my knowledge, by the hon. member for Mackenzie, and I should like to put on record some of the remarks he made in the course of a discussion similar to the one upon which we are engaged tonight. They are to be found in Hansard-
November 14, 1968


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Could I ask the hon. member a question? Can he indicate to me and to the committee where the items to which he is referring appear in the resolution before us?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes. This concerns the
excise tax pertaining to farm machinery. I drew attention to the reference on page six to machinery and tools which are allowed free entry. The hon. gentleman has received a note, as is usually the case, from his officials. I shall refer to these letters and notes in a few moments and I do not think the hon. gentleman will like what I have to say. I am referring to the excise tax, which is being amended right now.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If I am not mistaken, Mr. Chairman, I think we are attempting to amend the Customs Tariff. We are not dealing with excise taxes at the moment. I was about to raise this point even before any matters were brought to my attention. I wanted to indicate to the hon. member that the section of the resolution with which we are dealing at the present time was considered and, I believe, passed by a committee of the whole of the previous parliament on December 14. I made some remarks connecting this resolution with the Kennedy round. Perhaps I might amend them by saying that the new machinery item 42700-1, which is related to one the hon. member originally asked me about, is part of the Kennedy round parcel, and that is why I atempted to suggest it would be difficult to consider at this time the specific point he was raising.
I should like to ask the guidance of the Chair as to whether we are in a position to discuss specific items which are not actually part of the resolution before the committee.


James Hugh Faulkner: I would think not, but my impression was that the hon. member was talking about item 42711-1. I may be wrong, I thought it was perhaps by a slip of the tongue that he referred to the excise tax, and that he meant to say "customs tariff". Possibly the hon. member would like to clarify the matter.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I do not know what figures are being used, because they have all been changed. I intend to refer to the provisions of what is known as 409F. If the parliamentary secretary wishes to translate that into the new numbers, that is all right with me. If he thinks I am going astray, that is still all right with me. But the tariff is being changed right now and I am making the suggestion that while this is in process the Department of
Ways and Means
Finance should clarify what it is doing in making these changes. The Department of Finance puts these items in, and God knows who will be able to interpret them afterwards. The Department of National Revenue cannot do so. The Tariff Appeal Board cannot do so. When cases go before the courts, the judges have a heck of a time interpreting what is meant.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
From time to time when discussing definitions in this house we have suggested that the Department of Finance recommend one dictionary that it will use, if there is dispute about any change in a word or about interpretation of a word. The department has refused to do that. When it is making these tariff changes I want those responsible to spell out what they mean by "agricultural machinery" and "agricultural implements" and, Mr. Chairman, I intend to stay on my feet until I get them to do that.
The parliamentary secretary was talking about the intention of parliament and about the idea that farm machinery and farm equipment are allowed into Canada free of tariff and excise tax. This is an erroneous statement, because as a consequence of the efforts of civil servants in the Department of National Revenue very few pieces of this machinery or equipment come into Canada free of tariff and excise tax.
As I said before, many representations have been made to the department. Recommendations have even been made by members of the Tariff Board that this entry be changed, but there has been no action from the Department of Finance.
I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Mackenzie on July 30, 1963, as recorded at page 2813 of Hansard when he said:
The minister is saying that this is a complicated procedure-
Just like the parliamentary secretary is trying to do right now.
through which we have to go before we can get an exemption. I recall, for example, that during the war the procedure was very simple. Eaton's and Simpson's had a blank form in their mail order catalogue and all you had to do was fill out the form to indicate that you were a farmer and that the particular item you were buying was for farm purposes. This was all that was required during the time of war. This method was devised by people who were getting a dollar a year. Now, however, we find this is an extremely complicated problem and the matter cannot be looked at for another year. This does not make sense.

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
That was five years ago, but no change has been made by the Department of Finance. I think it is high time that the government told farmers that it is not interested in lowering the costs of production of farm produce. In fact we have an example here-blame it on the Kennedy round if you wish-where the costs of production are going to be increased by the amount of the increase suggested here tonight.
My second argument that this item should be changed comes from the question, why does the government impose customs duty and excise tax on items to be imported? The obvious answer is additional revenue for the federal treasury and, more particularly, the protection of industry. I ask protection of what industry? Surely it is not just the manufacturing industry of eastern Canada? Surely the minister was not just referring to the manufacturing industry when he said he was desirous of keeping costs of production down? Knowing the minister as I know him, I am certain he had the agricultural industry in mind also when he made that statement.
As all hon. members know, both eastern and western agriculture are going through very difficult times. In fact so far as western agriculture is concerned it could be said that this industry is going through a transitional period, and the need for government protection and action is evident now, possibly more so than ever before. Evidence of eastern agricultural problems was demonstrated a short time ago when eastern farmers marched on Ottawa. I hope, as I said before, that eastern members representing rural ridings in this house will support my plea with reference to a change in this item.
Western agriculture is suffering from lack of markets for grain. It is facing the necessity of producing more competitive grades of wheat, and it is also facing the problem of increasing costs of production. By parliament today not recognizing the intent of the term, "all other agricultural implements or agricultural machinery n.o.p." we are contributing to an increase in the costs of farm produce.
Some will say, and rightly so, that the farmer has recourse from a denial by civil servants of free entry, by appealing to the Tariff Board. An action of this type is costly and in many cases more than the individual farmer can afford. As a result he pays the tax, as the civil servant expects he will. I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that in the event a farmer won his appeal to the board, if the civil servant responsible for

forcing the appeal in the first place were assessed the costs, then more farmers would receive the justice to which they are entitled under the laws of our country, and we would be following the intent of parliament when it inserted this one item in schedule A.
If there were any doubt in the mind of the person whose duty it is to decide whether a machine or implement is to be used for agricultural purposes, an end user's certificate could be requested. However such a proposal has never been accepted, to my knowledge, by the departmental officials. At least all my efforts in that direction have been fruitless.
The principal behind such a proposal is the same as that applied by the Saskatchewan government in the use of purple gasoline. If it is used for farm operations it is not taxable. If it is used for any purpose other than farm operations the violator is prosecuted. I would suggest that the same thing should apply here. If anyone gets away with importing machinery or implements under the guise of their being used for agricultural purposes, then it is up to the government to prosecute that person if he does not use them for those purposes.
If the minister will not accept the suggestion to change the wording of the item in question, then I ask that he arrange acceptance of an end user's certificate, stating the machine or implement applied for free importation is for farm use only, and if found being used for other purposes the violator should be prosecuted.
My third reason for requesting the minister to change the wording deals with the difficulty encountered in interpretation of the present two phrases. I think the minister will agree that if the term in the bill cannot be defined, then it is serving no useful purpose by remaining in the schedule. However, I suppose they intend to leave it in the schedule. Being there it is confusing and, as a result, creates unnecessary procedures such as appeals to the Tariff Appeal Board and to the courts. This has been the circumstance for years, and parliament has made no effort to change the situation. Efforts have been made by individual members, but these have not been successful.
As I have stated, members of the appeal board themselves have stated that the terms "machines" and "implements" have an elastic connotation, and they find difficulty in determining parliament's intent. Surely to goodness if board members themselves find difficulty in interpeting the things we put into
November 14, 1968

the act, it is up to us to assume the responsibility for changing the words, so that they can understand what we mean. As I said before, if we do not know what we mean when we put these words into the act, how can we expect civil servants, or even judges, to know?
On the other hand in the only case I had time to read, the court in question gave a much broader definition to the terms than did the civil servants in the Department of National Revenue. Therefore I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary that if more farmers could afford to take their rejected appeals to the courts they would receive the benefit of the intent of parliament and the justice they have a right to expect in our society or, as the term goes now, in our just society.
Because the individual farmer has occasion only once or twice in a lifetime to make application for free entry, he hesitates to take his case to the courts, due to the cost factor. This additional cost factor he cannot afford, and this is one of the reasons civil servants in the department have been so successful in their denial of the farmer's right.
When dealing with officials of the department the farmer finds that every possible obstacle is put in his way in reply to his application. For instance, we find the following reply: "The decision is final and conclusive". Another comment used, in one of the letters I have here, is this: "There is no provision in the agricultural implements schedule of the Customs Tariff whereby pumps for use in flood type irrigation may be admitted."
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I wish I had time to read many of the precedents outlined by civil servants in the department for the farmers. I should like to know at this time what is a precedent: Is it something that supports what the department is saying or is it something that supports what I am saying? Having regard to the nature of some of these letters, I think someone should be taken to task.
I wrote the Minister of National Revenue on September 16, as I have done on several occasions, objecting to the very definitely negative paragraphs put out by some of his officials and sent in the form of farm letters to my constituents. I said that the civil servants should endeavour to assist rather than
Ways and Means
hinder those who contribute to their maintenance. I suggest one of the tasks of civil servants is to help these constituents.
The officials give yet another reason for rejecting these applications, saying in one case that the equipment must be of an active rather than a passive nature. They use this reasoning when a farmer is trying to get a wagon box exempted, saying that it must be of an active nature. A wagon box, of course, has no working parts. When you try to get a pump exempted, I presume they come back and say that it must be of a passive rather than an active nature. Apparently these precedents can be used both ways.
I have been surprised to find that many of these cases taken to the appeal board have been decided in favour of the farmers, after it was proved that the machinery involved could be used to a great extent not only for farm purposes but for other industrial uses. If farmers could afford to take their cases to the appeal board I think they would get much better satisfaction.
Let me put it to the parliamentary secretary, that this procedure is unnecessary if parliament would change the wording to which I have referred, making it much easier for the courts to make a decision. I should like to go into everything the courts have said in respect of agricultural machinery, in order to give members of this house a better idea of the problems the farmers have been facing when they make these applications. Let me refer to one case I found, which dates back to June 22, 1954, and is found in volume 1 of the Tariff Board Reports, at page 316. The president of the Exchequer Court in his judgment said:
It is, therefore, important to ascertain the ordinary meaning of the term "agricultural implements". If the defendant's friction disc sharpeners come within such meaning it is not necessary to consider the ambit of the term "agricultural machinery". The word "agriculture" is defined in the New English Dictionary, vol. 1, as follows:
'the science and art of cultivating the soil; including the allied pursuits of gathering in the crops and rearing livestock; tillage, husbandry, farming (in the wildest sense).' and "agriculture" is defined as:
'of or pertaining to agriculture; connected with husbandry or tillage of the ground.'
He continues and gives the definitions as contained in Webster's New International Dictionary, Funk and Wagnall's New Standard Dictionary, Webster's New International Dictionary-I suppose he is referring to

November 14, 1968
Ways and Means
another edition-and so on. After giving those definitions he then states:
I must now determine whether the defendant's friction disc sharpeners come within this ambit.
He concludes his judgment by saying:
It was also urged for the plaintiff that the term "agricultural implements" meant only implements that were actually used in tilling the soil or in such agricultural operations as seeding, harvesting or the like but did not include articles that were merely ancillary to such implements, such as the defendant's friction disc sharpener. In my judgment, there is no such limitation in the ordinary meaning of the term and, certainly the various classes of persons who dealt with or used the sharpeners did not consider there was any such restriction of meaning. They had no doubt that the sharpeners were farm implements, and therefore, agricultural implements. In my opinion, they were right.
I am quite sure, as I said before, that if farmers could take their cases to the courts they would win 90 per cent of them. In order that they do not have to do this I plead again with the parliamentary secretary to have the department change the wording of this one item.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to preface my remarks in respect of the Customs Tariff by congratulating the parliamentary secretary on his appointment and his able and competent chairmanship of the finance, trade and economic affairs committee during the last session. I should like also to congratulate the officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce who negotiated the Kennedy round agreements on behalf of Canada.
The parliamentary secretary said he would be pleased to answer some of the questions that might be fired at him. Perhaps he is prepared to tell us how the government feels about the attitude of the United States in respect of the Kennedy round agreements, and particularly the anti-dumping policy. Apparently there is some difficulty in this regard in Congress, and there might be problems in getting it passed.
There has also been an attitude expressed by the French government in respect of accelerating the tariff items, and this would have a direct effect not only on the European Economic Community but also on trade with France and other countries. Perhaps the hon. member is prepared to make a statement in that regard.
Every time I think of the GATT, which is the general agreement on tariffs and trade, I think of the words "fait accompli", because these items were put into effect on January 1 of this year. As of this calendar date they 
appear to be of this nature; nevertheless we have to go through the necessary steps to make them law in this country. The first question that should be asked in respect of the GATT agreement is, what effect has it had on lowering the tariffs in Canada and on the Canadian economy? This question was referred to the Economic Council of Canada, which was commissioned to make a special review of the tariff structure. That council found that the effective protection afforded Canadian industry, under the Kennedy round agreements, had not been substantially reduced, and in some cases was substantially less than before.
Let me quote from an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star of September 12, 1968, in which the Prime Minister rejected further lowering of tariffs. This was in direct contradiction to the recommendations of the Economic Council of Canada, that the Canadian tariff structure be reduced beyond the scope of the present Kennedy round commitments.
This article refers to effective protection and the degree to which Canadian producers could keep prices high without foreign competition. The article suggests that the impact on Canadian prices is expected to be very slight. I should say that this must be considered within the framework of the accelerated reduction of tariffs proposed by the council as one way of dealing with persistent prices which cause increased costs. The Economic Council of Canada made a special review of the Kennedy round agreements and suggested they afforded very little protection. Certainly the government did not follow its recommendations with regard to meeting the high cost of living, and the high prices that Canada is experiencing at this time.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
If Canada is to have a strong economy both in terms of its productive strength and financial structure, we must have a free trade policy. This free trade policy must be determined by our monetary policies, our trade policies and the industrial structure under which we operate in this country. Referring first to our monetary policies, one finds some restrictions imposed on us by reason of our fixed exchange rate policies and our foreign exchange reserves, which at the moment must be in the neighbourhood of $2.55 billion. When I set forth the proposition that we must take a new look at our fixed exchange rate policy and our foreign exchange reserves, members of the government will say: Here is
November 14, 1968

a New Democrat setting forth one of their wild-eyed theories.
I tell the parliamentary secretary that I am going to read to him the words of the Postmaster General in a book called "The Nation Keepers". The Postmaster General wrote an article in that book entitled "Foreign Guide Lines and Canada's Economic Future", and on page 214 of that book he says this:
If Canada pursues an aggressive free trade policy it is obvious that our fixed exchange rate policy will not work. We will have to go through so many fundamental changes in industrial organization that only a freely moving rate will be able to adjust to the productive process and measure our success or failure in achieving our aims. As J. E. Meade has written, there is no choice for free traders. "Free trade and fixed exchange rates are incompatible in the modern world." This is particularly true for a Canada which depends on trade, has a heavily protected manufacturing industry, and is much affected by the slightest changes in the economic policy of its neighbour. Freer trade will bring a more efficient use of our resources and expand our possibilities of growth, but these changes cannot possibly work their way through the economy within the constraints of a fixed rate.
The basic argument for fixed exchange rates is to protect the Canadian businessman from fluctuations in the value of the dollar. With a fixed rate he can plan; he knows what the costs of imported tools and machinery will be; he can measure precisely the net receipts from his exports. But why should the businessman be protected from risk and change? Is it not precisely the function of entrepreneurs and innovators to take advantage of economic change to control and direct the forces of change? By protecting the Canadian businessman from change, whether by tariffs or fixed exchange rates, we content ourselves with less than optimum performance and should not be surprised if our control over our economy lessens. Fixed exchange rates mean that we shape the Canadian economy to maintain an external equilibrium. For example, we are presently committed not only to maintain a fixed rate of exchange for the Canadian dollar but also a fixed ceiling to the amount of our exchange reserves. Our efforts, then, to employ more fully our human and material resources, including the 300,000 new jobs that we must find each year, must be circumscribed by these commitments. Exchange rates, which should adjust to the productive process, control and order our affairs. The whole weight of our economic policy is brought to bear on marginal problems, the problems of stabilizing a rate of exchange or maintaining rates of interest to control capital flows. We are forced to ignore the fundamental problems of growth and employment. Our balance on current account is approximately 2 per cent of our gross national product, and one would normally consider that economic policy directed to the composition and growth of G.N.P. would yield more satisfactory results than policies which have the effect of containing G.N.P. for the sake of maintaining a given balance in international payments.
These are the views of the Postmaster General with regard to the fixed exchange rate
Ways and Means
and foreign exchange reserves. One notes with satisfaction that the chairman of the Royal Bank of Canada, Mr. W. Earl McLaughlin, stated in today's Globe and Mail the same proposition, namely that Canada is hamstrung in its trade policies by reason of the fixed exchange rate and foreign exchange reserves. This is the first restriction that has been imposed upon us with regard to developing a free trade policy in Canada.
The second restriction is with regard to the industrial structure of the Canadian economy. This is why the problem of foreign ownership is so important to all Canadians. This is why the government sent forth the task force to study foreign ownership and the structure of the Canadian economy. Foreign investment in Canada as of 1964 amounted to $27 billion. As of now it is probably closer to $35 billion. Of that $27 billion in 1964, 80 per cent was American investment, 12 per cent investment of the United Kingdom and the balance that of other countries.
When one considers the Canadian economy, and more particularly automobiles, automobile parts and rubber products, being controlled by American investment to the extent of 97 per cent, chemical products of Canada being controlled by American investment to the extent of 78 per cent, and electrical parts and apparatus to the extent of 77 per cent, he can appreciate the magnitude of this problem.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, before we proceed perhaps I could refer to the business for tomorrow. We will be in committee of supply again. The first estimates we will be considering will be those of Mr. Speaker, on legislation. They will be followed by the estimates of the Department of Transport.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on October 28 I directed a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith). My
November 14, 1968

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion question arose from a decision rendered in the appeal court of Manitoba by Mr. Justice Freedman in a case in which a man, a citizen of Winnipeg, had been convicted of theft. In dismissing the case Mr. Justice Freedman expressed very serious criticisms of the handling of the case by the R.C.M.P. officers involved in making the arrest.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I have always believed that in Canada we should follow the procedures which have been established in the United States by the supreme court of that country, under which any person accused of a crime has the right to counsel, not just at the time of his trial but at the time of his being questioned by the police. Canadian courts have never followed this procedure although it is a pretty well established principle of British justice that a person who wishes to have counsel is entitled to have it. In the case to which I refer the person accused of theft told the R.C.M.P. officer that he wished to have counsel present when he was questioned. He was on the telephone with his lawyer. The R.C.M.P. officer took the telephone away from him, spoke to his lawyer and told him that he would not delay the questioning of the accused until the lawyer got there.
I want to quote briefly, because I think it is important, from the judgment given by Mr. Justice Freedman, which reads as follows:
The facts surrounding this aspect of the case are disturbing to anyone who prizes the rights of individual liberty in a free society. Among these is assuredly the right, on being arrested or detained, to retain and instruct counsel without delay. This is a right enshrined in English common law, vindicated by many judicial decisions of high authority and clearly and unmistakably affirmed in the Canadian Bill of Rights...
Mr. Justice Freedman goes on to give the facts of the case and to quote from the statement made by the accused and by the lawyer of the accused in which the lawyer, Mr. Brock, said, among other things:
I told Constable Taylor that I wanted to advise Ballegeer not to make a statement until I could talk to him but Taylor refused. I asked Taylor to relay my advice to Ballegeer but he said he would not do so.
The judge goes on to say:
Here is a spectacle of a police officer wilfully, and alas successfully, frustrating the due process of law. What the constable did was wrong and unjustifiable, and his conduct cannot receive the sanction of the court.
I want to conclude by saying that I am concerned about this case. It seems to me that

the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith) has the responsibility not only of investigating what happened in this case but in making certain that the R.C.M.P. officers, not just the constables doing the work but the R.C.M.P. officials at the top, understand that citizens have rights and that the law gives them rights, so that the R.C.M.P. like any other agency of government, must live by the laws and rules which we have established.
It seems to me that this is an extremely important case and one which the Solicitor General should take steps immediately to clear up in no uncertain manner.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell the hon. member on behalf of the Solicitor General, who is away on official business and could not be here tonight, that we have taken note of his remarks. The judge on the appeal, however, has ordered a new trial, and under the circumstances the case is sub judice. Accordingly, no comment can be made thereon.



HUMAN RIGHTS-REQUEST FOR NON-DISCRIMINATION POLICY IN NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on October 29 I directed a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, one which arose in my mind as a result of the refusal of the Supreme Court of Canada to hear again the case of Terrence John Whitfield v. Canadian Marconi Company.
These events took place some years ago. Mr. Whitfield was an employee of the Canadian Marconi Company working on the DEW line; and Marconi was fulfilling a contract for the federal government on that line. One of the conditions of employment which Mr. Whitfield signed was a condition which I do not understand, and certainly could not possibly justify. This is a condition which all employees were required to sign, namely that there would be no fraternization between any of the employees who came from southern Canada and the native population.
Mr. Whitfield, being a young man, and human, became interested in a young Eskimo lady named Ann Witaltuk. Despite the provision of the contract he had signed, he became friendly with her. I have an affidavit signed by the young lady which indicates that on one occasion she accompanied him to a social affair at the officers' mess at the R.C.A.F. station at Whale River. In order to gain entry to

November 14, 1968

the officers' mess it was necessary to pass through a guardhouse leading to the works project. Miss Witaltuk recalls that the guard acting tor the Canadian Marconi Company, at first stopped her from entering. Indeed he stopped both Mr. Whitfield and the young lady, saying he had instructions not to allow Eskimos to enter.
To cut a long story short, Mr. Whitfield was discharged. He subsequently sued the Marconi Company and his case was dismissed. I am not going to discuss what happened, except to say that it seems to be inconceivable that the government of Canada, which was enacted a Bill of Rights, a government which has passed the Fair Employment Practices Act, at a time when most provinces have passed a fair accommodation practices act, all of which certainly enunciate one simple principle that the people of this country are opposed to discrimination on the basis of race, colour or creed, should accept this situation.
I am not trying to rehash the Whitfield case. Surely, if we believe that we cannot condone the kind of thing which happened in the Whitfield case, then I should like the minister to adopt a very simple principle, that wherever the government does business with a company, whether it is giving a contract to a company, whether the company is doing work for the government or whether the government is giving a concession for mining, oil exploration or lumbering operations, the government should make it a condition of the contract with the company that there shall be no discrimination on the job or off the job in any way at all.
It seems to me I am making a very simple suggestion, and I can see no reason why this or any other government of Canada, in the light of the opinion about discrimination, should not agree to it.


Robert Knight Andras: Concern about discrimination has been expressed by several hon. members for many years, but more particularly recently by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I appreciate the opportunity of telling hon. members some of the measures that are being taken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; one in the form of a directive which was sent recently to departmental employees, enunciating certain policies. I do not believe time will permit the
2777
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reading of the whole of it, but I will read some extracts.
I begin with the following:
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
The Canadian Eskimos enjoy full citizenship, freedom, right and responsibilities as is the case with all Canadians regardless of origin, creed or colour...
Government employees are expected to treat all Eskimos with whom they come into contact either by business association or socially in a manner calculated to maintain the respect we have or should have for one another in the spirit of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
It goes on to provide for investigation and for appropriate action to be taken where such policy has not been carried out by any government department.
This policy has been brought to the attention of all departmental employees recruited to work in the north. It also requires that departmental officials will bring this policy to the attention of all agencies and contractors doing work for the department in the north.
At a recent meeting of the advisory committee on northern development it was confirmed by all government departments involved that they will accept this policy, and it was subsequently confirmed formally that they were administering this policy vigorously with respect to any contractors within their area of jurisdiction. The policy embodied in that directive-which, as I say, I could not read in toto since time does not permit-was brought to the attention of the United States government and is now incorporated in the terms of the agreement administered by contractors on the DEW line system.
I would also refer to the statement made by the Minister of Labour on November 6, as reported at page 2470 of Hansard. With regard to the employment practices of the Northern Canada Power Commission I refer to the statement made by the deputy minister in his capacity as chairman of the commission, before the standing committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on November 5, page 3.
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION___________



&quot;THE WAY IT IS&quot;

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, my appearance this evening arises from the program "The Way It Is" on C.B.C. television two days before the United States election, an election, sir, that I suggest was the cause of great anxiety not only to
2778	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Americans but to the friends of Americans, including ourselves.
Part of the program that evening was a journalistic essay called "Listen, America" created by a cameraman named Yves Delau-rot. It dealt with black power, with riots, with police brutality. It showed a burning Buddhist monk; it dealt with marijuana; and one scene showed many naked hippies at a love-in. Some of it, as Patrick Watson stated, was staged; but he did not indicate which portions were indeed so staged. Technically, I think it was well produced and the camera work was superb.
However, Mr. Speaker, I say of the show that its timing was poor. I say of this show that its theme was entirely one-sided and biased. Canadian Broadcasting Corporation employees in Ottawa have told me that it was obviously put into the program by an antiAmerican clique in the C.B.C. in Toronto.
I say of the show, Mr. Speaker, that its presentation was in the tradition of cheap journalism of the kind that would make the editors of Hush and Flash sit up and say: "I wish we could get away with that, but the police and the Postmaster General would not let us". I also say, Mr. Speaker, that part of this show was a play for perverts who rejoice in sadism. I say that part of the show was for those who like irregular sexual practices and obscenity.
I suppose, Mr. Speaker, that I will be met with some kind of argument to this effect: Well, after all, we must have freedom of expression. I do not have the right in our free society to go forth into the town square and shout four letter words. I do not have the right in our free society to throw ordure at another person.
But above and beyond the sheer lack of taste displayed in that particular program, or at least in that particular segment of it, I would say this, Mr. Speaker. We have had experience in parliament of dealing with the management of the C.B.C. We all recall the
DEBATES	November 14, 1968
famed expression of a former minister who said the C.B.C. had "rotten management". We have had the "Seven Days" hearings. We have had hearings ad infinitum and ad nauseam in the time I have been in parliament and before. Yet, Mr. Speaker, no cure has been effected.
It is still obvious that there is no direct link between upper management and management at the level which would put this sort of trash on a television program. There is no effective management at the top. Who are the people who planted that journalistic essay in the program? Obviously they include some in important places, at decision-making levels, whose moral outlook is depraved and whose entire outlook is one of anarchy and nihilism. No wonder the editor of the Saint John Times-Globe wrote of this incident concerning, "The way it is", under the title, "The way it shouldn't be".


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the C.R.T.C. informed me that comments have been received about the program referred to by the hon. member. I know he understands very well that under the Broadcasting Act the C.B.C. has the right and responsibility to produce its programming free of government interference, and subject only to the law and the regulations of the C.R.T.C. I might mention, as the hon. member will know if he saw the program, that the film which he spoke about was clearly identified and introduced as a biased and one-sided presentation, and not a documentary, of certain issues confronting the United States of America.
I offer no judgment about the merits of the program. I invite the hon. member and others who are interested in it to express views to the C.R.T.C. and the C.B.C. in the matter.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, November 15, 1968