1968-01-31

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS


Mr. Patrick T. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-199 intituled "An Act respecting bilingual documents".


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Mr. Speaker, as Canada is a bilingual country, it is advisable that all documents sent from time to time to Canadians by the various departments of the government, in order to get statistical information or for other reasons, should be written in both official languages of the country: French and English.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Nowlan: 1.	What volume in tons of less than carload freight traffic was (a) loaded and (b) unloaded at railway stations in (i) Canada (ii) the Atlantic
Provinces (iii) Ontario and Quebec (iv) Western Canada, during the years 1960-1966, inclusive?
2.	What volume in tons of less than carload express traffic was (a) loaded and (b) unloaded at railway stations in (i) Canada (ii) the Atlantic Provinces (iii) Ontario and Quebec (iv) Western Canada, during the years 1960-1966, inclusive?
3.	What annual increase or reduction in revenue expressed in dollars is expected to accrue to the Canadian railways from the introduction on September 5, 1967, of new rates for the movement of non-carload traffic?
4.	What percentage increase or reduction in revenue do the railways anticipate from the new non-carload rates in relation to the formerly applicable LCL freight rates in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic Provinces (c) Ontario and Quebec (d) Western Canada?
5.	What percentage increase or reduction in revenue do the new non-carload rates represent to the railways over the formerly applicable LCL express rates in (a) Canada (b) the Atlantic Provinces (c) Ontario and Quebec (d) Western Canada?
6. If the data requested in Parts 4 and 5 are not available by provinces, what are they for the territories of Maritime, Eastern and Western as described in the Board of Transport Commissioners Waybill analysis for Atlantic Provinces, Ontario and Quebec, and Western Canada, respectively?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. Information requested is contained in the Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports "Railway Freight Traffic". Data has been extracted for the years 1960-1966 inclusive and is shown hereunder:-
2,	3, 4, 5 and 6. No information is available with respect to these questions.
Year
Loaded in Canada
Ontario
Atlantic and Canada provinces	Quebec
Tons of L.C.L. freight
Unloaded in Canada
_	Ontario
Western	Atlantic	and Western
Canada	Canada provinces Quebec Canada
1960	
1,110,768	187,398	622,652	300,1961	
991,832	213,203	514,721	263,1962	
1,057,466	230,229	548.549	278,1963	
971,543	203,609	493,971	273,1964	
865,265	153,049	413,251	298,1965	
1,151,296	194,147	612,679	344,1966	
891,238	158,160	421,001	312,718	1,211,354	263,305	618,272	329,777908	1,047,347	237,295	528,573	281,479688	1,130,146	263,775	572,587	293,784963	1,025,823	237,972	487,991	299,860965	918,172	209,271	392,668	316,233470	1,198,875	234,969	605,128	358,778077	951,300	206,913	420,846	323,541
January 31, 1988
Questions


CN.R. EMPLOYEES LAID OFF IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many employees of the Canadian National Railways in the Province of Newfoundland were laid off in each of the following years: 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966?
2.	With respect to the above, how many in each year were (a) scheduled employees (b) non-sched-uled employees?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. and 2. By the nature of the railroad industry, across the system, lay-off and recall is a day by day local activity of which aggregate records are not maintained. Since
1965,	the company has extracted aggregate data for those lay-offs exceeding 30 days or any complete calendar month. In 1965 and
1966,	such lay-off actions affecting scheduled employees numbered 151 and 269 respectively. Employee recalls, for those who had been laid-off, in those years or prior years, for more than 30 days or any complete calendar month, numbered 704 and 660 respectively. The classification "laid-off" is not normally used in respect of non-scheduled employees.


C.N.R. TRACKAGE, EASTERN QUEBEC-NB.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): In the Chaleur Region of the Canadian National Railways, how many miles of main railroad track (excluding sidings) are there in (a) Quebec (b) New Brunswick?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: (a) 648.24 miles; (b) 781.09 miles.


C.N.R. PASSENGER TRAFFIC, EASTERN QUEBEC-N.B.
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): In each of the last five years, how many passengers boarded Montreal bound Canadian National Railways trains at (a) Bathurst (b) Campbellton (c) Mont-Joli (d) Rimouski?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.


C.N.R. REVENUE AT CERTAIN STATIONS
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): What was the revenue of the Canadian National Railways in each of the stations of (a) Halifax (b) Moncton (c) Bathurst (d) Campbellton (e) Edmundston (f) Mont-Joli (g) Rimouski, in each of the years (i) 1962-63 (ii) 1963-64 (iii) 1964-65 (iv) 1965-66 (v) 1966-67, for A) passenger tickets and (B) tickets for berths and roomettes?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been the practice nor is it considered in the best interests of the company to disclose information of a nature which would be of value to its competitors.


C.N.R. STAFF ON CHALEUR TRAIN
Mr. LeBlanc (Rimouski): 1.	How many employees of the Canadian National Railways are part of the staff serving the travelling public on the Chaleur train which serves the people of the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe Peninsula?
2.	Of this number, how many speak French only?
3.	How many speak only English?
4.	How many are bilingual?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. 139.
2.	Nil.
3.	39.
4.	100.
It is the company's policy and practice, through language instruction, to encourage and assist employees in acquiring the degree of proficiency in either language required by their present or prospective positions.


MAINTENANCE OF HAINES ROAD
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	For each of the years during which the Haines road has been maintained during the winter months, what has been the cost thereof to (a) the Canadian Government (b) the Government of the United States of America?
2.	For each of the said years, has the Canadian Government paid any money to the Government of the United States for the maintenance by the American Government of any portion of the said road in Canada and, if so, how much money was so paid?
3.	Does any similar cost-sharing arrangement with the Government of the United States exist with respect to any other road in Canada?
January 31, 1968


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Department of Public Works as follows: Until the winter of 1963-64 the southern section of the Haines road from the Port of Haines to Mile 48 (six miles within the Canada-U.S.A. border), and the northern section from Mile 94 to the junction with the Alaska highway (Mile 159), had been kept open to provide access to United States army pumping stations which were vital links on the oil pipe line to Alaska. The state of Alaska kept open the southern section and Canada kept open the northern section on repayment by the United States army. The central section (Mile 48 to 94) was closed during the winter.
Questions
of the winter maintenance agreement with the Department of Public Works:
Year
Winter	of	1963-64"	"	1964-65"	"	1965-66"	"	1966-67
Mile 42-94 137,248
138.098 135,943
138.098
3.	So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, there is no other similar cost sharing arrangement with respect to any other road in Canada.


CANCELLATIONS OF AIR CANADA FLIGHTS 390 AND 391
[Stage Direction]
In 1962 the state of Alaska opened a marine ferry for freight, truck, car and passenger traffic between Prince Rupert and the Alaskan panhandle ports, including Haines. With the opening of this ferry, pressure developed to keep all of the Haines road open during the winter as a connecting link for traffic to the Yukon and Alaska. This was first attempted during the winter of 1963-64 on an experimental basis. As Canada did not have the necessary heavy snow clearing equipment available, agreement was reached with the state of Alaska for the state to provide equipment and crews on repayment. By the spring of 1967 it had been established that winter maintenance was feasible. The Canadian government accordingly made arrangements to take over full responsibility for the maintenance of the Canadian section of the road.
1.	(a) The cost, in Canadian dollars, including the payments to the state of Alaska set forth in Part 2 below, to the Canadian government:
Year	Mile 42-94 Mile 94-159
Winter	of	1963-64	153,516	Nil"	"	1964-65	159,569	Nil"	"	1965-66	155,594	Nil"	"	1966-67	162,798	Nil
(b) The Department of Public Works has been provided with certain cost figures on which to base our payment which has a maximum limit; however, we cannot affirm that these figures represent the total cost to the state of Alaska and the United States (United States army) for maintenance. In any case, we cannot publish these figures without first having been given appropriate consent.
2.	Payments, in Canadian dollars, were made to the state of Alaska under the terms
Mr. Peters: 1.	How many times during the months of October and November was the regular Air Canada Flight No. 391, originating out of Montreal and going to airports of Ottawa, Val d'Or, Rouyn, Earlton, North Bay and Toronto, cancelled and for what reason in each case?
2.	During the same period, was the regular Flight No. 390, originating in Toronto and going to the airports of North Bay, Earlton, Rouyn, Val d'Or, Ottawa and Montreal, cancelled and, if so, for what reason in each case?
3.	In each case, in both 1 and 2, how many people were involved in each cancellation at each airport, and what alternative did the Air Line provide in each case?
4.	What reason for cancellation was given to the passengers?
5.	Has any suggestion been made by the carrier to offer better service to the public served by Air Canada Flights No. 391 and No. 390?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Flight 391, October: cancellations: nil. November: cancellations: 8, reason: weather.
2.	Flight 390, October: cancellations: nil. November: cancellations: 9, reason: weather.
3.	Since the flights did not operate, records have not been retained of numbers of passengers involved. The airline provided first available air or surface transportation for the passengers to their destinations, in accordance with their wishes.
4.	Adverse weather conditions caused the cancellations and the passengers were so advised.
5.	Improvement in operations in the Rouyn-Earlton area would require vast sums of money to be spent on runways, landing aids, etc. and Air Canada has not felt justified in recommending such expenditures on the part of the government.

January 31, 1968
Questions
EMPLOYEES ON C.N.R. FERRIES, MARITIME	C.N.R. PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE,
PROVINCES	NEWFOUNDLAND


Mr. MacDonald (Prince): 
James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The number of crew, excluding relief personnel, as at November 1st, each year was as follows:
1965	1966	1967M.V. Abegweit 95	99	99S.S. Prince Edward Island (a) 69	94	100M.V. Confederation 85	(b) 58	(b) 37S.S. Scotia II 52	(b) 15	(c) 2(a)	Vessel in drydock.(b)	Vessel laid up.(c)	Vessel laid up without power or steam and all machinery immobilized.2.	The Canada Shipping Act states that "every steamship registered in Canada shall be manned with a crew sufficient and efficient from the point of view of safety of life for the purpose of her intended voyage". The legal requirement established by the Canadian steamship inspection board is 16, 17 and 19 certificated lifeboatmen per shift on the Abegweit, Prince Edward Island and Confederation, respectively, when in operation. The Canadian National complies to the fullest extent with these regulations.3.	While no further lay-offs are presently contemplated, management must exercise its judgment in relating the size of the work force to the volume of traffic moving and seasonal factors.


Mr. Schreyer: With respect to C.N.R. Passenger Train Service in Newfoundland:
1.	What was the number of passengers carried for the years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965 and 1966 by coach and first class?
2.	What was the revenue from passenger traffic for the years noted in Part 1?
3.	What was the cost to the Railway for operating the passenger trains for the years noted in Part 1?
4.	What was the average number of coach cars, parlour cars, dining cars and other cars used in passenger service per train for the years noted in Part 1?
5.	What was the number of S.D. and P.C. and other train passenger employees for the years noted in Part 1?
6.	What was the number of new cars and other equipment purchased for train passenger service for the years noted in Part 1?
7.	What is the number of employees that will be displaced, if the train passenger service is discontinued, and their total earnings for 1966?
8.	What is the fastest time that a train proceeded from Port aux Basques to St. John's and at what stations or sidings did it stop?
9.	Prior to the public announcement on April 4, 1967, that a bus service would start by the C.N.R., were discussions held with any governments?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
1.	The total number of revenue passengers carried in each of the years 1961 to 1966 inclusive is as follows: 1961, 151,491; 1962, 126,567; 1963, 111,586; 1964, 118,307; 1965, 119,046; 1966, 87,796.
Data is not readily available to furnish a breakdown of these passengers by coach and sleeping car prior to the year 1966. During the year 1966 there were 71,481 coach and 16,315 sleeping car passengers.
2 and 3. It is considered not to be in the best interests of the company to disclose publicly this type of information. However, pursuant to section 3141, subsections 3, 4 and 5 of the Railway Act, the railway is required to submit on a confidential basis, such information to the railway transport committee of the Canadian transport commission which then determines and makes public the actual loss or profit figure. In this connection, that committee by order No. R-507 dated November 6, 1967 has established that the said passenger train service incurred an actual loss of $918,000 in the year ended December 31, 1966.
January 31, 1968

Questions
Year	Coach	Sleeper	Dining	Other1963-Summer	4	4	2	2Winter	4	3	1	21964-Summer	5	4	2	2Winter	4	4	2	11965-Summer	4	5	2	2Winter	5	5	2	21966-Summer	4	4	2	2Winter	4	4	2	2S.D.	and P.C. employees	Train	and engine	crewYear	Summer	W inter	Summer	Winter1961	76	54	36	321962	62	46	36	221963	72	35	36	221964	73	42	36	221965	92	39	40	241966	66	30	40	246.	No new passenger equipment was purchased for the Newfoundland service during the years in question. However, during the period 1949 to 1958, 48 units of various types were acquired.7.	It is not possible at this time to state exactly how many employees will be displaced since there are a number of labour crafts, and seniority regulations of each craft which will be involved. It is currently estimated that about 130 permanent positions and 56 seasonal positions will become redundant. The total salary rates for these positions is approximately $955,000. However, it is expected the proposed bus operation will require approximately 57 permanent employees, the total annual payroll of which would be about $340,-000.	Every effort will be made to fill these new positions with, or offer alternate employment to, those displaced if the passenger train services are discontinued.
8' The fastest scheduled time for passenger trains operating between St. John's and Port aux Basques was for train No. 101 which covered the route in 21 hours during the summer of 1967.
9. No.


OIL POLLUTION IN NATIONAL HARBOURS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	How many cases of oil pollution were investigated in Halifax Harbour, referred to on page 5662 of Hansard, in 1965, 1966 and 1967; how many were traced to source; and how many actions were launched in courts?
2. What were the equivalent experiences in Montreal and Vancouver in each of the three years for cases investigated, sources of pollution traced, and actions launched?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. 1965; Cases investigated, two; traced to source, nil; court actions, nil. 1966: Cases investigated, three; traced to source, three; court actions, one; 1967:	Cases investigated, four; traced to
source, one; court actions, nil.
2.	Vancouver: 1965: Cases investigated, one; traced to source, nil; court actions, nil. 1966: Cases investigated, four; traced to source, three; court actions, one. 1967: Cases investigated, six; traced to source, six; court actions, two. Montreal: 1965: Cases investigated, 18; traced to source, 10; court actions, four. 1966: Cases investigated, 19; traced to source, 14; court actions, four. 1967: Cases investigated, 24, traced to source, 16; court actions, 12.


EMPLOYMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEES ABROAD
Mr. Laprise: How many employees does the National Employment Service have in (a) the United Kingdom (b) France (c) other countries?


Mr. John C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Canada Manpower Division
(formerly known as the National Employment Service) has no employees outside Canada.
Questions

January 31, 1968


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, EMPLOYMENT SERVICE AND MANPOWER EMPLOYEES, NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many employees were involved in the operation of the Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the National Employment Service at Amherst, Nova Scotia, as of January 1, 1963?
2.	How many employees were involved in the operation of the Manpower Office at Amherst, Nova Scotia, as of January 1, 1968?
3.	How many employees were involved in the operation of the Office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the National Employment Service at Springhill, Nova Scotia, as of January 1, 1963?
4.	How many employees were involved in the operation of the Manpower Office in Springhill, Nova Scotia, as of January 1, 1968?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by Unemployment Insurance Commission and the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows:
1.	Twelve employees.
2.	Eight employees.
3.	Eight employees.
4.	Four employees.


MANPOWER CENTRE DESK CALENDARS
Mrs. Wadds: 1.	How many desk calendars for the year 1968 were supplied to the Canada Manpower Centre, 17 Church Street East, Smiths Falls, Ontario, and under whose authority?
2.	What was the total cost of these calendars?
3.	Were other Canada Manpower Centres across Canada supplied with similar calendars and, if so, at what locations and in what numbers?
4.	What was the total cost involved in all of the above?


John Carr Munro: 1. 51 calendars for the year 1968 were supplied to the Canada Manpower Centre, Smiths Falls, Ontario, under the authority of the director of the Ontario region, Canada Manpower division.
2.	$19.38.
3.	Each Canada Manpower Centre in the Ontario region was supplied with similar calendars. The number given to each centre was in proportion to the number of employers serviced by the centre.
4.	The total cost was $2,158.01.


MRS. CATHERINE MORESIDE
Mr. Macquarrie: Since the return of the answer to Question No. 368 on October 16, 1967, has any information or documentation been received to indicate that Mrs. Catherine Moreside is not the oldest person in Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the centennial commission: No.


TRANSFER OF NATIONAL REVENUE OFFICES, AMHERST, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Is it the intention of the government to transfer the offices or any part of the offices of the Department of National Revenue presently located at Amherst, N.S. and, if so, (a) how many employees will be involved in the transfer, where will they be relocated and how many will remain at Amherst (b) on what date is the proposed transfer to take effect?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of National Revenue):: On January 15, 1968, the excise tax audit office of the Department of National Revenue was transferred from Amherst, N.S., to become a part of a new district excise tax office at Moncton, N.B., encompassing all excise tax functions. As a consequence of this transfer the four persons formerly employed at the Amherst excise tax audit office are now employed at Moncton. Eight employees of the customs and excise division of the department continue to be employed at Amherst. No other transfers are planned at the present time. The taxation division of the department has no office at Amherst.


MANPOWER CENTRE DESK CALENDARS
Mr. Hales: 1.	How many Canada Manpower Centre simulated leather desk calendars have been purchased and what is the total cost?
2.	How many of these calendars have been distributed and what is the cost of mailing?
3.	To whom were these calendars mailed?
4.	Were these calendars made in the U.S.A.?
5.	What is the name and address of the firm from whom these calendars were purchased?
6.	Were tenders called for these calendars?


John Carr Munro: 1. 5,606 calendars at a total cost of $2,158.01.
2 and 3. No exact count is available, as the calendars, showing the Canada Manpower Centre's telephone number, were for staff to
January 31, 1968

leave with employers they visit, in the area serviced by the centre. Calendars were not mailed.
4.	No. For some of the calendars the Canadian supplier used some components purchased from the U.S.A.
5.	Advertising Gifts Company, 370 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario.
6.	No.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate): Mr. Speaker, there is no document such as the one mentioned by the hon. member in his motion for production of papers. While I am asking him to withdraw his notice of motion, I can assure him that the departments concerned will provide answers to the points raised in his notice of motion if he will place his written question on the order paper and allow some time to obtain an answer.


HARBOURS AND RIVERS EXPENDITURES, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the notice of motion withdrawn?


Mr. Coates: What has been the total expenditure of the Harbours and Rivers Engineering Branch of the Department of Public Works in Cumberland County for the fiscal years 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and the estimated expenditure for 1967-68?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works):
Year
1963-	64
1964-	65
1965-	66
1966-	67
1967-	68


MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures $ 99,400 46,900 104,300 23,300
264,800 (estimated). FOR PAPERS
Mr. Real Caouette (Villeneuve):: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Motion withdrawn.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General if he has had brought to his attention allegations made by Mrs. Wilson of improper conduct by a Scotland Yard superintendent in Canada, and also improper interference by the R.C.M. Police with the service of a process arising out of this matter. If so, can the Solicitor General tell us what are the facts of the situation?


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 43?
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



INQUIRY AS TO EXTRA-JUDICIAL DUTIES OF JUDGES OF DISTRICT AND COUNTY SUPERIOR COURTS

Mr. Caouette: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a return showing what judges of "District and County Superior Courts" within the meaning of section 96 of the B.N.A. Act were appointed to extra-judicial duties such as Royal commissions, advisory committees, etc.; what extra remuneration, if any, above regular salary have these judges received in such cases; and what is the policy of the government concerning the appointment of such judges to extrajudicial duties.


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am advised as follows. The R.C.M.P. arrested Charles Wilson pursuant to section 16 of the Immigration Act. This section does not require a warrant for arrest of a person who, there are reasonable grounds to believe, came into Canada by reason of false or misleading information or other fraudulent or improper means.
Certain articles and money were taken into the possession of the R.C.M.P. with the consent of Mr. Wilson. Mr. Butler was present for purposes of identification, but he did not make the arrest nor did he participate in the search of the premises. All moneys and articles taken into the possession of the R.C.M.P. were later given back to Mr. Wilson, and a receipt was obtained for them. Mr. Wilson in turn gave $1,200 in Canadian money to Mrs. Wilson, who had been granted bail in the sum of $1,000.

January 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry
According to press reports counsel tor Mrs. Wilson "is thinking of taking action against the R.C.M.P. for obstructing justice". Under the circumstances I believe I should not go into the merits of that allegation at this time, but I wish to stress that what I said should not be taken as meaning that I agree with the allegation that there was improper conduct on the part of the R.C.M.P.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was Mr. Wilson in fact physically deported from Canada before the expiry of 24 hours after the deportation order was made? Perhaps the Minister of Manpower and Immigration might answer the question.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to check into that matter.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister with reference to the speech from the throne which opened this session on May 8 last, in which the government indicated its intention of bringing down legislation to set up the Canada Development Corporation. In view of the fact that this commitment has been made every session since 1963 without ever materializing, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can tell the house when this legislation will be brought down, in order that members of the house may have an adequate opportunity to study it.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to answer that question. We hope to bring this legislation before the house before the end of this session. However, that will depend on the progress we make in respect of legislation which is now on the order paper, and I hope that progress will be sufficient to deal with the legislation to set up the Canada Development Corporation. If not, it will certainly be brought forward early in the next session.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: have a related question, Mr. Speaker. In the

same speech from the throne the government indicated its intention to send the report of the committee on election expenses to the standing committee on privileges and elections. Since some eight months have gone by without any action being taken, is it the government's intention to send the report on election expenses to the standing committee of the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think that question was asked of me a few weeks ago, and I had better ascertain what reply I gave then. As I remember I said there was no reason why this should not be done, but I had better check on my own words. I can see no reason why it should not be done this session.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Industry but, in his absence, I will put it to the right hon. Prime Minister.
On the local news last night the mayor of Hull, Mr. D'Amour, complained that federal officials have exerted pressure upon a French industrialist to set up his industry in Ontario rather than in Quebec, since it would then be easier to come to transact business with the United States. Is the right hon. Prime Minister aware of these facts and does he intend to inquire into the situation and report to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not aware of it, but I will try to make myself aware of it immediately.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Considering the serious economic repercussions that the announced closing of the Canada and Dominion Sugar Company refinery at Chatham will have on the agricultural industry there, and the warnings that this closure sets a pattern for the rest of
January 31, 1968

Canada, will the minister, in conjunction with the Department of Trade and Commerce, be announcing the development of a comprehensive sugar policy for Canada which will permit the continuation of this part of the agricultural industry in Canada?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the officials of the company which is closing its plant in the Chatham area, and I intend to see the producers concerning the effect on their livelihood of the closing of the plant and the possibility of diverting to other crops. I will certainly be discussing the situation with the officials of trade and commerce. If there is any change in government policy as a result of this move, of course it will be announced in the normal fashion.


Howard Earl Johnston: Will the minister be consulting the other areas of the country that are engaged in the sugar industry so he can ascertain the situation there before the fact, rather than after the announcement of closures at other points in Canada?


John James Greene: There is no indication to date of any plants in western Canada contemplating stopping their activities or going out of production. The indications are that the protection the western manufacturer has by reason of the freight advantage is sufficient to make the industry a viable and economic one in western Canada. Certainly I would be very pleased to listen to any representations, if there are any, from the west, but I have not had any as yet.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: In
view of the fact that contracts for 1968 must be signed not later than March, will the minister be holding this conference immediately?


John James Greene: As I say, I have already met with the company officials. I think the producers were made aware of the situation only the night before last. I am certain I will hear from them as soon as they have had their meeting, and I will be prepared to meet with them immediately.


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council if the closing of this sugar plant in Chatham is not another perfect example of foreign ownership.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether in his opinion there is still hope that this factory may be kept in operation.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John James Greene: Well, in all candor, Mr. Speaker, my conversation with the company officials did not indicate any hope that they would contemplate keeping the factory open for sugar purposes. They did instruct me, however, that they were keeping the factory and had expectations they could use the plant for an agricultural purpose within the area. They are not able to define that purpose yet, or have come to no conclusion at the present time.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he has communicated with Premier Smith of Nova Scotia respecting the tabling of an exchange of letters in connection with the Sydney steel situation. If so, is he prepared to release that information now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the premier of Nova Scotia has received the letter and is giving consideration to it. I hope to see him when he arrives on Sunday, to see whether we can agree to make the exchange public early next week.


Malcolm MacInnis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that a solution to this problem is being desperately sought, do I take it that because of the interchange of letters the government has refused the proposal put forward by the Nova Scotia government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have made proposals to the Nova Scotia government which I hope they will find helpful in the circumstances.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to add to the reply I gave to my hon. friend from Cape Breton South. I have just learned that a reply had come in from Premier Smith before lunch this morning saying he had no objection to the tabling of the correspondence, so it can be tabled tomorrow.

January 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of their unequalled contribution to Canadian history and world security, does the Prime Minister not think a day should be set aside in honour and memory of our armed services before unification is proclaimed?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house whether the Canadian members of the international control commission in Viet Nam have been in any danger or have suffered any casualties as a result of the street fighting in Saigon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received a preliminary report from our delegation in Saigon which indicates that to the best of the delegation's knowledge there have been no casualties among Canadians serving with the delegation.
However, in the disturbed conditions now prevailing it may take a little time to obtain formal confirmation of this from those Canadians who are serving at commission posts outside Saigon, and also from Canadians living and working in South Viet Nam in capacities other than commission assignments. We are making inquiries as to the position of those Canadians outside Saigon, and as soon as we receive some information I will make it available to the house.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was wondering whether the government was considering advising those Canadians who are not in Viet Nam on official duty as members of the international control commission, but who are on other duties that are perhaps of a non-governmental nature, to leave the country under the present circumstances.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the members of the commission do have information about Canadians working outside the commission. The commission is trying to get in touch with them, and if there are developments that would require them to leave their official duties, or their duties whatever they may be, and come back to Canada I am sure

they will be given that advice. However, I hope to have a report on all this shortly, and I will be able to give more information at that time.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the report of the Canadian envoy who went to Hanoi as a result of the peace feelers has yet been received and, if so, what it indicates?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the only report I have received is from our representative who is in Hanoi. It indicates that he has had discussions there, that he will be returning to Saigon very shortly-indeed, he may have reached Saigon within the last day or so-and that when he does return to Saigon he will be in a position to send a report on his mission. That report I have not yet seen. Whether it has come in during the day I am not sure, but I will make inquiries.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether he has received a request from any of the premiers of the three prairie provinces requesting the withdrawal of members of the Company of Young Canadians from that part of the country? If so, what was the nature of his reply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I have received no such request.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. On January 26 I asked the Acting Prime Minister whether the reported drive for charitable funds on behalf of the Company of Young Canadians to replace the $400,000 reduction in their budget allocation had been submitted to the government for its approval. The Acting Prime Minister said he would endeavour to ascertain whether that was the case. I wonder if the Prime Minister could now report on the matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have not received a report, but I will be glad to make inquiries this afternoon and see if I can reply tomorrow.
January 31, 1968



PART PLAYED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND C.P.R. IN JAPANESE CONTRACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of great interest to the Canadian people as a whole and to those in the Kootenay country in particular.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Hear, hear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Since an agreement has been signed between the coal industry in British Columbia and the Japanese steel industry for the delivery of $650 million worth of coal, would the minister mind informing the house what part the federal government and the Canadian Pacific played in bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the question as asked is acceptable. The hon. member has referred to events which have happened. He is asking for information which in my view had better be given at the time of motions.



TEXTILES-SUGGESTED RESTRICTION ON IMPORTS FROM JAPAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
Following the numerous lay-offs in the textile industry, particularly at the Dominion Textile plant in Sherbrooke, under the pressure of foreign imports, would the minister tell the house if the government intends to take immediate steps to invite Japan to limit its exports of textile products to Canada and to respect more faithfully the agreements now in force?


Hon.   Jean@: Mr. Speaker, that problem comes under the Department of Finance, but I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) follows the situation very closely and that all the necessary steps have already been taken.



POSSIBLE IMPORTS OF FROZEN BEEF FROM ARGENTINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of Agriculture gave
27053-391J	6
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose a categorical assurance that no official of his department was taking part in discussions with the Argentine regarding the importation of frozen beef. Would the minister now care to modify his answer in light of the return yesterday from the Argentine of Mr. R. J. McClenaghan an officer of the minister's department, reported to have been taking part in such discussions?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my understanding there is some discussion with respect to noncanned beef coming in with respect to the ability of that beef to meet our standards of health and sanitation. Certainly as I understood the hon. member's question there is no question of purchase by the government. I may have misunderstood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John James Greene: Certainly anyone can apply to our department for health and medical standards, and these inquiries are coming in all the time. I understand there is some application from the Argentine to pass non-canned beef with respect to health and medical standards.


Mr. Fulion:: Then I ask the minister whether his department or government contemplates the importation of such meat into Canada.


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that approval for this calibre of beef has yet been given, but I shall be glad to check for my hon. friend. If it has been approved I shall be pleased to let him know tomorrow.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1966-67 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
M. R. D. McLelland (Roselown-Biggar):: have a question that should ordinarily be directed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In his absence I shall ask the Prime Minister if he can inform the house and the many interested farmers and businessmen of western Canada when the wheat board will be making the final payments to the farmers on the 1966-67 wheat crop deliveries, as some cheques for the 1965-66 crop year were dated January 17, 1967.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer that question, but I shall try to find the answer as quickly as possible.

January 31, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry FLOODS



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In the light of the fact that R.C.A.F. personnel at the Comox base participated in a shuttle service to provide water to the community at Campbell River following recent flooding, and the fact that Reeve MacDonald of Campbell River was able to obtain the services of army engineers from Chilliwack to assist in measures against flooding, is there any opportunity for the forces at the minister's disposal to act directly in connection with the serious situation at Bella Coola, of which we have spoken on a couple of occasions.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: I shall be very glad to study those precedents.



POLLUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question to direct to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I should like to ask whether there is any likelihood of legislation in connection with water and air pollution being brought forward this session.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: That is my hope, Mr. Speaker, but I am a realist and recognize that it may not be possible to do so at this session, but only possible in the course of the next one.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: My question is intended for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman stated in the house yesterday that all the government's plans and policies were designed to keep unemployment to a minimum, may I ask what plans and policies the Prime Minister has in mind to assist the more than 600 dock workers in the port of North Sydney who will be unemployed as a result of this government's plans and policies?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can hardly accept the suggestion that these dock workers are losing their employment as a result of government policies, but I hope that government policies will be able to restore them to employment in this or some other occupation.


Robert Muir: May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he will get in touch with his colleague the Minister of Transport in connection with this matter within the next few days because, as I understand it from the Canadian National, lay-offs are about to commence; and will he issue a statement outlining the plans the government has in mind to assist this large group of people?



CANADA PENSION PLAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Dryden Hales: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue arising from an answer I received to a question on the order paper concerning overpayments made to the Canada Pension Plan by employers. Having been advised by the former minister that no technical problem existed with regard to repayments, can the hon. gentleman now assure us that these overpayments will be refunded to employers, as was done in the case of employees to the extent of about $8 million?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not know whether my predecessor made a statement along these lines but, according to my information, an amendment would have to be made in the act to enable us to refund that part to employers, and for that, we need the consent of the provinces.


Alfred Dryden Hales: The former minister said the government was obtaining this information from the provinces. Has it not been received as yet?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the program is now under consideration and we are making inquiries to clarify the situation.
January 31, 1368



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I asked the Prime Minister whether he would indicate to the house the items of legislation which the government wishes parliament to deal with during the remainder of the present session, and the right hon. gentleman indicated that this could be done. I wonder whether the list is ready today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have been looking into this matter, and on orders of the day tomorrow I hope to be able to make a short statement which will indicate the program of legislation we would like to submit to the house immediately after we have dealt with the bill now before the house, if we ever are able to deal with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the list include provision for increasing the pensions of retired civil servants, so this matter can be dealt with before the present Prime Minister retires?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would only be in a position to submit the pieces of legislation which are very urgent and of immediate importance; and while the item to which the hon. member refers is of great importance, it is not on the immediate and urgent list.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Why not?



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to address a question, if I may, to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the continuing difficulties encountered by local education authorities in providing the children of immigrants with special English classes so they can fit into the normal school system, and in view of the fact that the federal government is responsible for immigration and has invited the parents to this country, will the minister and his colleagues not reconsider their present policy with regard to assisting to meet the extra expense involved in the area I have indicated?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this question cannot be asked now. It is much too general in nature and would require by way of reply a statement of the kind normally made on motions.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the second session of Canada's twenty-seventh parliament is fast drawing to a close, and bearing in mind the deep interest taken in Saskatchewan in the subject of a second national park, can the minister indicate when the long awaited report on the location of such a park will be available to the house and, if possible, the date on which the development will commence?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I was
hopeful and still am hopeful that an announcement can be made some time this summer.


Edward Nasserden: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development supplementary to the one asked several minutes ago. Is the delay in announcing plans for a second national park in Saskatchewan due to the inability of the provincial government to make up its mind where it wants the park to be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question as asked is argumentative.


Edward Nasserden: If I may rephrase it, Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask is the delay due to the failure of the provincial government to advise the minister where it would like the park to be located?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I find it difficult to see a difference between the two questions. I think both are out of order.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the government made a firm decision



January 31. 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry with regard to the date of implementation of medicare?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I tried to deal with this question yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and at this time I cannot add anything to what I said.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. Bearing in mind the late dispatch of the T-4 personal income tax forms from the department to the various regions of Canada, will the minister consider waiving the penalty clause to the extent that the tax forms were late? Would the minister, in addition, tell the house why these forms were late in arriving this year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am taking note of the question and I shall give an answer to the hon. member tomorrow.



REPORTED HEAVY IMPORTS OF VEGETABLE OILS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister now in a position to give me an answer to the inquiry I made yesterday with regard to the assistance the sunflower producers can expect from the government to offset the effect on that important industry of the importations of vegetable oil?


John James Greene: I am instructed that the officials of my department, and in particular the officials of the agricultural stabilization board, have already met to consider the representations of the sunflower producers and processors and have heard the representations made in this regard. If any action is to be taken an announcement will be made in the proper manner.
With regard to the question asked by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, in view of his keen interest in rapeseed and rapeseed oil, I may say that officials of my department have informed me they are watching the situation in connection with these products very closely.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. minister of Manpower and Immigration.
As Bill No. C-186 was referred to a committee on December 5, could the hon. minister tell us when it will be considered in committee of the whole house and whether this legislation will be passed during the present session?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is more than I can answer at the present time. All I know is that the committee has been established and that the bill has been referred thereto. Like my hon. friend, I am at the disposal of that committee.



RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the formation yesterday of a national advisory body in connection with scientific experiments on animals, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation early to establish standards of animal care in Canada and a qualified inspectorate to enforce such standards?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-163, to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, to amend the Radio Act in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential and related provisions-Miss LaMarsh- Mr. Batten in the chair.
January 31, 1968
The Chairman:: Order. On Friday, last; January 26, when the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings had proposed an amendment to clause 2(d) of Bill C-163, an act to implement a broadcasting policy for Canada, a question of order arose concerning the reading of the French version of the amendment. At that time only the English version of the amendment was available. The Deputy Chairman offered to take the question under consideration and at that time, as recorded at page 6038 of Hansard, the committee agreed.
Since that time I have had the opportunity of discussing this point with Mr. Speaker, with the Deputy Chairman, and with the Clerk and his assistants, and I would be prepared to make a ruling now if the committee wishes me to do so. Is it the wish of the committee that I proceed?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, while the point itself does not seem to be of much interest there are surrounding issues which are of very considerable importance. I was not present when the incident took place and I wonder to what extent there has been discussion of this point of order in the committee and in the house. I also wonder what guidance might be given to the Chair on this matter. I have some very definite views with respect to it. I would hesitate to hear your ruling and then ask to be allowed to make representations. I do not want to take up the time of the committee and so may I suggest that we might hear Your Honour's ruling. Then, if it runs counter to what some of us think, and we feel that the matter is of such importance, it might be possible to have it appealed to Mr. Speaker. I hope it would be understood, however, that this would be done without reflection on the Chair. It would be done simply because of the importance attached to the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask Your Honour a question? Is there really a point of order before the committee? As I understood it, a point of order was raised last Friday but in the course of time the Deputy Chairman said the point of order had disappeared. He then had the amendment in both languages, he read it in both English and French, and the question was voted on. As I understand it, rulings have to be given on points of order when those points of order are actually before the house. This point of order was not held over. The issue dissolved. I just wonder whether this is an occasion when a firm ruling is called for, or whether it is simply an
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting occasion when Your Honour may give us the benefit of your thinking on this point in case it arises again. I would be interested in hearing Your Honour's views on the matter, but it seems to me that a firm ruling should not be given since there is no point of order before the committee at the present time.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, at the time the point arose debate was taking place. The Deputy Chairman then arose and said that the point of order had disappeared, because at that stage he had the French translation in his hand, and therefore there was no point of order. It was then pointed out, and I believe properly so, that the point of order still existed, and after a few words the Deputy Chairman agreed to reserve decision on that point of order. I take it that that is the one upon which you are about the rule now. In reply to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I point out that a point of order was definitely raised. Adjudication was asked on it. No adjudication was given and the point of order was reserved.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I fully support the contention of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that in fact there being no active point of order we might well be better served if we do not have a firm ruling on one.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Maybe it is the wish of the committee that any ruling to be made on this particular point might be reserved until a similar point of order is raised again. Does the committee agree?


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, I think I will raise a point of order. It was reported to various members of the house that the officer of the house in charge of proceedings at that time gave an indication that amendments must be in the two languages. I would point out to Your Honour that in my not inconsiderable experience this has never been a stipulation. In fact I would put it to Your Honour that it would be an impossible one to carry out.
Amendments are proffered to the Chair in English or in French, and this hold true whether in committee or when Mr. Speaker is in the chair. If what has been suggested were to be made a rule, then the Chair could not rule until it had an officially certified translation of an amendment in the language other than that of the hon. members proposing it. I would put it to Your Honour that this could never be so.
6210	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
We have a translation service that is as official tor amendments as it is for the appearance of translations in Hansard, and for the edification and understanding of hon. members. There can be no distinction between amendments in both languages. Therefore I put it to the committee that the question would not arise and should never have arisen.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. Gregoire:: On that occasion, Mr. Chairman, I was the one who had asked you to read in both languages the amendment before the house. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) raised several points of order. He felt that the simultaneous translation was enough and that it was not necessary for the chairman to translate the amendment in both languages.
I then raised a point of order myself, under standing order 43 which provides:
When a motion is seconded, it shall be read in English and in French by Mr. Speaker, if he be familiar with both languages: if not, Mr. Speaker shall read the motion in one language and direct the Clerk at the Table to read it in the other,
It is quite simple. This means that a motion or an amendment must be read by the chairman in both languages, so as not to leave it to the translator to provide a translation, which, besides, would not be official.
At that time, the chairman of the house took my request into consideration, since he did not allow the amendment to be discussed before it was translated officially and read in the two languages.
It seems to me a ruling was given then and there since, in fact, what the standing orders say was accepted.
The member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)-unless I am mistaken, because there were technical difficulties at that point and I did not quite understand what he said-stated that the chairman could not be asked to read the amendment in the two languages-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, not at all. Nothing in the standing orders forbids a member to ask the Chair to read the amendments in the two languages. I said that standing orders did not require a member to introduce an amendment in the two languages.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what was said the other day and I admit that the point of the member for Edmonton West is well taken, that nothing requires a member to introduce

DEBATES	January 31. 1968
an amendment in both languages. However, the standing order requires that on request of a member the chairman shall read the amendment in both languages.
We are told today that it is not necessary to make a ruling on this point; let us wait until the problem arises another time and postpone the ruling.
On the contrary, I think that standing order No. 43 is being questioned, and that a ruling by the chairman of the committee of the whole should be made on this question. If, a member makes such a request in the future, the present discussion will not be repeated, because we will know exactly where we stand. If someone requests it, the reading of such an amendment must be made in both languages.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I think your ruling should be made today so that this matter will not be left in abeyance.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, as one who was in the house at the time of the episode I must state that I agree one hundred per cent with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. There is no point of order before the Chair and there has not been since the episode occurred. I see no reason for any ruling now by Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would much rather have a ruling by Mr. Speaker. In any event I suggest that we proceed with the discussion of the bill as there is no point of order before the house or the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it the wish of the committee to proceed with Bill No. C-163?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On clause 2-Broadcasting policy for Canada.


Herman Maxwell Batten: When the committee rose last evening clause 2 (h), with an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South was under consideration.


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, at the hour when the committee rose last night I was in the midst of trying to explain once again my reservations in respect of the wording of subclause (h). I had an exchange with the minister at that time and suggested I could not subscribe to the change in the amendment which she suggested earlier in the day, because I felt it still did not protect the public interest by definitely taking the position we find is necessary to be articulated on
January 31, 1968

behalf of that public interest. Therefore I felt that the kind of change the amendment proposed was an unacceptable one. I am not sure that the remarks I made during the concluding phase of last night's debate on the point were made as clearly as I intended.
My point is that I am worried about future interpretation, not the present interpretation. The minister had referred to the presence in the gallery of representatives of the Board of Broadcast Governors during the course of this debate, and I had made reference to the minister's conclusion that the members of the board would thus be familiar with the unhappiness of hon. members on this side of the house with subclause (h) and with the substance of our argument on behalf of the public interest, to the effect that this would not be known to representatives of a future Board of Broadcast Governors.
I am not concerned about today's representatives of the Board of Broadcast Governors but rather about future broadcasting authorities who at some future time will be placed in the position of arbitrating broadcasting disputes. I submit they will not be familiar with all the arguments and different interpretations that have been placed on this terminology and, as I attempted to suggest last night, will act in keeping with the letter of the law as stipulated in subclause (h), as it appears to us.
We feel the objectives of a national broadcasting service have not been enunciated in specific, all-embracing and conclusive terms. Admittedly, some of them have now been taken care of by subclause (g), but is this all embracive, inclusive and conclusive in description of those suggestions? I believe there is room for doubt on that score, and there is considerable room for the suggestion that in certain areas of disputes and activities in the future it is possible there may be other objectives of the national broadcasting service not contemplated in clause (g), and therefore not covered by this wording. These objectives will be lumped together with all the objectives of the national broadcasting service as principles and considerations that must prevail in the interest of the private broadcaster, should any dispute between the two arise.
What I have been attempting to stress is our concern about a future interpretation on the basis of the letter of the law as it is proposed in this legislation, and our concern for the public interest which does not seem to be protected by subclause (h) as it is worded
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting at this time. I understand that a possible compromise has been worked out by the government and the opposition on this point. I am not certain what the wording of the compromise amendment to subclause (h) consists of, or the final form it will take. However, I am as concerned as the minister or anyone else in this committee that we process this legislation with all reasonable speed, provided all reasonable care is taken. It is my hope that we can reach a satisfactory solution to this impasse in respect of subclause (h) and move to other clauses of the legislation.
In that spirit I am willing to withdraw my amendment, without withdrawing the sentiments I have expressed on behalf of the public interest and without withdrawing my assertion and enunciation of concern for the public interest, and about the fact that the public interest is not protected here. I do not withdraw my concern that the wording of the letter of the law seems to be weighted in favour of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and against the private operators. However, as I say, in the interests of trying to expedite the passage of this subclause, in cooperation with the minister-and she has certainly co-operated with me-I am willing to withdraw my amendment. That does not necessarily mean I will be in favour of the new amendment to be proposed. I will withhold judgment in that regard until I am acquainted with the precise wording of the amendment. If it does not satisfy me so far as the public interest is concerned, I beg the indulgence of the committee and the minister to raise the subject again.
At this point, to clear the way for a possi-lbe compromise and the expedition of this clause of the legislation, I will ask, with your permission and the permission of the committee, to withdraw the amendment I moved yesterday.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: The unanimous consent of the committee will be required for the hon. member to withdraw his amendment. Does the committee give that unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman) asks us to accept the withdrawal of his amendment in order for another one to be introduced.
6212	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
If the hon. member wants to withdraw an amendment, in order to move another one, or to have another one introduced, it means that he is aware that another amendment will be moved.
But he does not tell us what the new amendment will consist of; he does not read it to us, so that we are unable to tell which of the two would be the better one, or which of the two we must favour.
That is why we may perhaps accept the withdrawal. If the amendment is withdrawn, it cannot be introduced again, for an amendment may be moved only once. If we are not satisfied with the second one, the first one, having been withdrawn, cannot be introduced again, and we are left with nothing.
I wonder, if before asking leave to withdraw his amendment, the hon. member for Winnipeg South could not read the other amendment which will be presented, in order that we may make a decision in that connection. If not, Mr. Chairman, I think that I will have to object to the withdrawal of that amendment, unless the other amendment to be proposed instead is read to us.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member for Lapointe certainly has a valid point. I will, with the committee's permission and indulgence, either read or make arrangements to have read the proposed amendment that would take the place of mine. I was not in a position to do that at the moment I was speaking. If I may have a minute or two, Mr. Chairman, I will arrange that.
The amendment which is proposed and which would take the place of my original amendment-and it will not be moved by me but by another member of this party-would be the following:
That clause 2 (h) of Bill C-163 be amended by deleting same and substituting therefor:
(h) "where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service;''
In other words, the amendment is an extension, as far as the wording is concerned, of my amendment. My amendment ended at the word "interest"; it said that when such a conflict arises, it shall be resolved in the public interest. This amendment goes on to say:
-it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service;

DEBATES	January 31. 1968


Herman Maxwell Batten: Does the committee now give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Winnipeg South to withdraw his amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Sherman) withdrawn.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, what is there possibly left to say or do, except present the amendment to the committee, which I accordingly do. I have made my points in previous speeches and we had a lengthy discussion yesterday on the question, so I do not feel it needs extra words from me at this particular time.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, the debate on this point has been interesting but I would like a little further explanation with regard to the phrase which has been added, which reads that "paramount consideration" shall be given to the public service. Everything hinges on the word "paramount". Does that mean "overriding"? I am not certain you can say that it shall be resolved in the public interest, and then immediately go on to say the public service shall take precedence over that. Does this not bring us back to the original provision in the bill? I have not had enough time to consider it, but perhaps if we could have a short debate on this issue my thinking would be clarified. I am just urging some keener minds to give us the benefit of their advice.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, perhaps it is true that the word "paramount" is the one that gives most trouble to members of the committee. I have checked with the dictionary which I obtained from the table, which says that "paramount" can mean either "supreme" or "superior". I suggest that read in the light of the whole sentence, the amendment does not put the public system invariably in the position of winning that particular battle, but rather it is the public interest that must be considered; and those who will have to judge that question are to be the council. They will have to give paramount consideration, or superior consideration, to the objectives of the national broadcasting system. I think that the word "paramount" has, in the eyes of the law, acquired precision by interpretation and I do not think it bears the interpretation that my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre suggests.
To me it is not a matter of supremacy but one of superiority. I have looked at the definitions in the "supremacy" and "superiority" fields. "Supreme", for example, means "the
January 31, 1968

greatest possible", "uttermost", "extreme", "last and greatest" or "most important". I think all those definitions show some limitation, and suggest that "paramount" would not invariably, or 100 per cent, throw the decision in any conflict in favour of, say, the C.B.C. as opposed to private interests.
After all, the first thing the council must consider in its decision in any conflict is the public interest. They must say: We have one guide line, namely that the people of Canada, through the C.B.C., are spending a great deal of money on the public service. So that some consideration, in this case paramount consideration, must be given to that element.


Mr. Wahn:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the definition which the hon. member for Halifax read to us, it appears that his intent is that a preference should be given to the objectives of the publicly owned system, but not necessarily that it should be overriding in all instances. I suggest to him that perhaps his intention could be made completely clear by changing the wording of the amendment slightly to read "but a preference shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service", if that is his intention. Perhaps in view of the ambiguity of the word "objectives" it would be desirable to add that the objectives are those set out in this particular clause, to make it clear that what we are talking about when we use the word "objectives" are the objectives set out in subclause (g).


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I am appalled at the sudden switch we have observed this afternoon in the stance of the Conservative party.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I believe that last night they fought one of the best battles in a long time on what could be called a conservative position. At that time we in this party remained silent because the members of the Conservative party were doing so well there was nothing to contribute to the brave and stirring speeches of the various members who held forth on behalf of that party, and its approach to private and public broadcasting. It was like the springtime of that party, as if they had been reborn and refurbished for the battle. However this afternoon we find that the blasts of winter have moved in again. The thaw was very short lived indeed. I have no proof but I suspect they have received telegrams from the hon. member for Royal and the hon. member for Prince some time between last night's debate
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting and the time this afternoon when the amendment was moved, because we heard several times last evening that those two hon. members were absent. Their absence was quite noticeable in the calibre of the debate and the approach that was taken. Yet this afternoon the suggestion was made that an amendment is about to be presented which will undo all of the good work done last night, which will vitiate and eliminate all the brave words uttered last evening, and which will not alter one iota the government's intent when subclause (h) was written into the bill presented by the government. The subclause reads that the objectives of the national broadcasting service must prevail, and the amendment states that these same objectives must be paramount. The meaning of the word "paramount" is perfectly clear. It does not mean that the objectives are to be considered, discussed and taken under advisement, but rather that they shall and must prevail. If the subamendment is in fact presented, then we are no further ahead than we were before. If it is presented, I would be prepared to move an amendment to the subamendment to delete these words so as to enable us to vote on the wording that the public consideration be paramount in any dispute between the public and the private sectors of the broadcasting service.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, it must be obvious by now that the compromise proposal submitted by the hon. member for Halifax will not be acceptable to most of those who find the wording in the bill before us acceptable. I agree with the hon. member for Okana-gan-Revelstoke that the substantial effect of the proposal now before us is the same as that of the original clause in the bill. There is no point in trying to evade this simple, stark fact, and one must make one's decision on the basis of his judgment as to what would be in the public interest, whether it would be in the public interest for the objectives of the national broadcasting service to be considered paramount as opposed to the interests of the private sector of broadcasting.
If the proposal of the hon. member for Halifax is put before us formally, I certainly intend to support it because the wording is in effect the same as that of subclause (h). But I must say also that I cannot understand the concern expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. It is not that I disagree with the sentiments he expressed last night in the concluding sentence of his speech. I refer to
6214	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting the following sentence as recorded at page 6159 of yesterday's Hansard:
It is the public interest that is important, not the interests of the national broadcasting service or its objectives, nor the interests of private broadcasters or their objectives.
I agree with the expression of this opinion, but it seems to me that when one looks at subclause (g) and subclause (h) taken together it appears that in subclause (g) it is the intention of parliament to impose certain objectives on the national broadcasting service. Obviously we have done so because we feel it is in the public interest for the national broadcasting service to have certain stated objectives to follow and to implement. If it is in the public interest to direct these objectives to the national broadcasting service, it follows that in the implementation of this imposed obligation or responsibility we must also give the national broadcasting service paramount authority in any conflict that may arise between the public and the private sectors of our broadcasting system.
I really think this is so clear and obvious that it hardly requires saying that the Canadian Radio Commission, which we will establish through the medium of this bill will receive a delegation of power from parliament. It will hold a position of public trust for the purpose of protecting the public interest. There is nothing wrong with repeating the words "protecting the public interest" in this clause, but it is redundant because it is already contained in and woven through the previous clauses of the bill.
I accept the wording in subclause (h) as it is in the bill. I could also accept any of the amendments to this subclause that have been proposed. I see nothing wrong with the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halifax, it is my view that it does not alter the intent of the original wording.
I apologize if I have offended the sensibilities of any hon. members, but I do not understand the point of the discussion which we have had in the past hour.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Are we to understand that the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave) has or has not presented an amendment? In fact, he suggested that he would present one, he handed over some copies, but the Chair did not read the

DEBATES	January 31, 1968
amendment. Are we discussing the amendment to clause 2 (h) which has not been presented by the hon. member for Halifax but which was supposed to be?
I would like to obtain some explanations in that connection.


Herman Maxwell Batten: The amendment submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg South has been withdrawn. The hon. member for Halifax moved the following amendment:
-that clause 2 (h) of Bill No. C-163 be amended by deleting same and substituting therefor: "(h) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service."
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I understood that the hon. member for Lapointe did not agree to the withdrawal of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg South, but that the hon. member for Winnipeg South put before the house an amendment he was considering proposing if the house consented to the withdrawal of the original amendment. We are still on the original amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South.


Herman Maxwell Batten: My understanding of the proceedings was that the hon. member for Winnipeg South asked for permission to withdraw his amendment. He then suggested the new amendment that would be moved, which appeared to be agreeable to the hon. member for Lapointe. The amendment which I just read was then moved by the hon. member for Halifax.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.
Again, I know my remarks may complicate matters, but they are necessary. Before defining the word "paramount", the hon. member for Halifax consulted the dictionary in order to give an exact definition. In my opinion, we should also know the official definition and translation of this word.
Therefore, I would ask again that the amendment be read both in English and in French.
January 31, 1968


Herman Maxwell Batten: I will ask the Clerk to read the amendment in French.
tAnd a Clerk at the table having read the amendment as follows:]

Mr. McCleave moves that subclause (h) of clause 2 be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
(h) "where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service;"


Mr. Nuganl:: Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I am not happy with this paragraph as it is and I am afraid I am not very happy with the proposed amendment. It seems to me that the proposed amendment is contradictory in itself. The amendment provides that a matter shall be resolved in the public interest, but that paramount consideration should be given to the C.B.C. Obviously we are always legislating, we believe, in the public interest. Having said that, how can we qualify it by saying that paramount consideration should be given because obviously if paramount consideration should be given to the C.B.C. it is in the public interest that it should be given. These words therefore are redundant. I do not believe we can pass an amendment containing those words. If members agree that paramount consideration should be given to the C.B.C., and that it is in the public interest, then that is what the clause should say.
I am not so sure that I want to make the subclause that strong. I detect a feeling in the house that hon. members do not want the subclause as strong as it is now without amendment. The indication is now that the objectives of the national broadcasting system must prevail. Perhaps the committee should have spent more time on this clause and had some expert draftsmen present. I do not believe hon. members are very far apart on this matter. The essence of the paragraph appears to be that where all other considerations are equal and it is a choice between giving a station, for instance, to a private network or to the C.B.C., there shall be a slight bias and the matter shall be resolved in favour of the C.B.C. I do not believe any of us contemplate a situation in which we want to give the private network more than the benefit of the balance of probability. There
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting may be some who want to make it much stronger than that. This is what I infer from the speeches that have been made and from the manner in which these amendments have been presented. I suggest, therefore, that we cannot go along with this amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who are "we"?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I suggest we should introduce a new amendment which will more clearly express our ideas and the subclause might be allowed to stand. Perhaps after line 35 we should insert the words, "where all other considerations are equal there shall be some slight favour given to the C.B.C." Some wording similar to that would indicate that it is a mere touch of the scales that we want when we are considering the public interest. Perhaps the minister would indicate her own feeling or how far the government wants to go in giving pre-eminence to the C.B.C. I thought there were some very good speeches made last night, some very logical ones, pointing out the dangers in the wording at present. Perhaps some of us are looking at that wording and reading into it more than a court might. The prevailing opinion seems to be that the subclause gives overwhelming preference to the C.B.C. I wonder if the minister would indicate whether I am correct in that view, that the government does not want to give overwhelming preference to the C.B.C. but all things being equal there will be a slight bias in favour of the C.B.C.


Mr. Ryan:: I rise to support the view that has been expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I have written an amendment which is in practically the same words he has suggested. I am concerned about the dictionary meaning of the word "paramount", meaning superior or supreme. I would support the suggestions made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for St. Paul's so that after the words "in the public interest", I would add the words "when all considerations are deemed equal, the preference shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service."


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you mind repeating that?


Sylvester Perry Ryan: After the words, "it shall be resolved in the public interest", read these words, "when all considerations are deemed equal, the preference shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service."
6216	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting [DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to repudiate the last speaker on behalf of the government, and to state that the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona is quite incorrect in his suggestion. We are miles apart in our understanding. It is very clear that the wording of the committee is there, and that is the wording which the government intended; that is the way the bill was printed. We were prepared to accept an amendment which had been discussed by a number of individuals and which I believe even the hon. member for Halifax had good reason to believe would be supported by other members of his party. Obviously that is not the case, and I should like to say that it is the government's intention to support the committee on broadcasting. We are quite prepared to meet a vote on this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, the fact that some members of this party may disagree with regard to wording does not indicate to anyone who has perception that there is any wide divergence of opinion here. Of course I will not mention the divergence of opinion on the other side of the house. I will not draw attention to one very able member over there who is not always in accord with the government's propositions.
Although the minister may get some temporary pleasure out of a partisan attitude, which I never adopt, nevertheless I want to assure her we are fully entitled as members of a committee to look at the wording of bills and make suggestions, whether or not someone's idea has to be altered. This does not matter; we are all here for the same purpose. We have had a very able suggestion put forward as a subamendment from the other side of the house, with which I presume the minister agrees. If she does not, then the Liberal party is in a terrible state. It is divided and it will crash and fall to pieces. I am just waiting to hear the thud as it collapses.
With regard to this amendment, Mr. Chairman, I favour the original amendment that was moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South. I had some doubt about the word *"paramount", but the most recent suggestions that we have had from the two members who preceded me-with the exception of the minister-I think clear up that doubt pretty well, and modify the statement. If the committee could now tidy it up and come to some agreement then the minister may find that everyone in the committee is in agreement

DEBATES	January 31. 1968
and that there is no split in one party or the other.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment before the house that was moved by the hon member for Halifax. If hon. members in all parts of the chamber want to introduce new amendments, perhaps we should vote on this one first.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the advice of the minister, but it has always been my view that it is a perfectly good debating procedure, and is sometimes most helpful, to consider one amendment as opposed to another before we make up our minds on one or the other. Before we come to vote several amendments may be suggested, and I think there is nothing wrong with this.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, I was going to offer my hon. friend from Spadina a word of advice. I have only one comment to make on his proposed amendment, and it is the same comment that I would make on the amendment before us, which reads, in part, "it shall be resolved in the public interest but".
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the proposed amendment should read "it shall be resolved in the public interest by"-in other words, by taking this course of action. In that case the legislation would make sense. I suggest it is not making sense when we say that something "shall be resolved in the public interest but", and then go on to suggest something that modifies this statement. This puts us into a ridiculous position.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I cannet support the amendment of my hon. friend. I am sure that I support the idea behind it, but I do not see how anyone in the committee can support reasoning that resolves something in the public interest, but subject to paramount consideration being given to something else.
I should like to see a vote taken in this committee that decides how strongly we want to favour the C.B.C. in such consideration. I feel that the word "paramount" is too strong. I favour an amendment that reads that "it shall be resolved in the public interest by", preference being given to the C.B.C. where all other considerations are equal. Substantially, Mr. Chairman, that is the wording of the amendment of my hon. friend, I think. Although the wording is changed around somewhat I do not think the essence of it is changed one bit.
January 31, 1968	COMMONS
I think the committee would have to take a vote on the present wording; any other course would be an anachronism. Although I do not think the committee could accept the present wording, I think it should give some expression of opinion as to whether the consideration should be paramount, or that preference should be given to the C.B.C. where all else is equal.
Perhaps my hon. friend who proposed this amendment would reconsider it and withdraw it. I would also suggest that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Spadina be revised. Or, Mr. Chairman, if the committee would consider standing this paragraph for a moment I will get together with the hon. member and suggest an amendment so the committee can decide whether or not to give preference to the C.B.C. where all else is equal, or whether the interest of the C.B.C. shall be paramount.


Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I really do not see any need to embarrass the official opposition any further by asking one of its members to withdraw the second amendment in a matter of 15 or 20 minutes. The question can be resolved quite quickly if hon. members would move back to the high ground that they occupied last evening when they made their brave stand at that time.
What bothers me about the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halifax, and the suggestions made pursuant thereto, is that all of this watering down of wording amounts to the same thing. In this bill we are providing that the Canadian broadcasting council will adjudicate in any dispute, yet the committee is now saying that it does not trust the council to keep the public interest paramount in its mind. We are already, in a sense, in contempt of the council that is being set up by this legislation. We do not seem to trust it, so we must bind it to tip the scales in one particular direction.
I suggest it is not correct to say that, all other things being equal, the council should tip the scales a certain way; that if all other things are equal the council should come down on the side of the public interest. We do not need to be told that the interests of the public and the interests of the government forever coincide. We do not need to be told that the interests of the public and the interests of any crown corporation forever coincide. The interests of the public and the interests of the C.B.C. do not necessarily coincide for all time.
DEBATES	6217
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would move the following subamendment:
That the words "but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service" be deleted.
The paragraph can then be considered in terms of the public interest and nothing else.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to know whether I can speak to the amendment or must I speak to the narrow bounds of this subamendment at this time?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The committee is now considering the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, this question is becoming quite important because two schools of thought exist here: In case of conflict between the public and the private sectors, some want the objectives of the public network to be paramount. On the other hand, others feel that public interest should be considered and that public good should prevail.
Reading paragraph (h) with the amendment and the subamendment that have been moved, that means that public interest should prevail.
Mr. Chairman, I am in full agreement, because if the objectives of public broadcasting should always have precedence, there will surely occur circumstances where a conflict of interests will arise between the two and where the interests will be so important that it will end in a game of collusion to protect such interests and give rise to collusion, fraud, complicity with the C.B.C., so as to try to protect interests.
I will give a definite example. Before long, the question of broadcasting by satellites will arise. Now, we know that there will be only three satellites on the Canadian territory and only one over Quebec.
Broadcasting by satellite is, of course, something quite significant and the small radio and television stations will not seek to obtain a satellite, it will be rather the purpose of big private interests. However, if there is only one, C.B.C. will say: It is among our objectives to have that satellite. And big private interests will want it also. Therefore, collusion will exist or a risk of collusion, and
January 31, 1968

Canadian Policy on Broadcasting I explain what I mean: If we look at clause 39 (l)(m), we can see where that collusion could come into play.
Clause 39, in part, reads as follows:
-subject to any applicable regulations of the council, and for the purpose, the corporation has power to-
That is, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
I read now subclause (m):

subject to the approval of the governor in council, acquire, hold and dispose of shares of the capital stock of any company or corporation authorized to carry on any business that, in the opinion of a corporation, is incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects of the corporation;
That is, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Which means that the C.B.C. will have the power to acquire shares in any private company and, with regard to satellites, collusion could exist in the sense that a private company-I mentioned one earlier-could set up a corporation for the purpose of putting in orbit a transmission satellite, and the C.B.C., under clause 39(l)(m) could agree to collusion in order to acquire shares in that corporation.
I am going to mention a few facts. Of course, I shall not present now all my evidence, because I shall do so when we come to the consideration of clause 39 (m). But in order to abide by the rules, I shall give an example: We know that the Power Corporation intends to launch such a satellite. If there is a conflict of interests, for instance, if only one satellite can be launched, the C.B.C. will want to have it. Therefore, there will be conflict among the two corporations. If the Power Corporation sets up a new corporation for the purpose of launching a satellite, keeps the majority of the shares and sells some to the C.B.C. under clause 39 (1) (m), then the interests of both corporations will be preserved.
How could this happen? I shall quote a few names which lead me to believe that such collusion may actually exist and is probably going on right now. The Power Corporation appoints its legal adviser president of one of the television stations owned by that corporation, namely channel 7 in Sherbrooke. It is Mr. Claude Frenette, new president of the Liberal Federation of Canada, Quebec section. Some connection is already obvious. But I shall go even further. Those who drafted, four years ago, the manifesto advocating a centralization policy, for a better administration, in the field of mass information media, included among others: Mr. Claude Frenette,
[Mr. Gregolre.j

legal adviser of the Power Corporation, Mr. Marc Lalonde, present adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was not a member of parliament then, but is now Minister of Justice.


Howard Earl Johnston: How about tomorrow?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Fernand Cadieux was amongst those who worked on that manifesto, although he did not sign it. He is now a producer with the National Film Board.
Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that steps are being taken to allow Power Corporation to form a company, to extend its tentacles into higher spheres and to use the stipulations of clause 39 (1) (m), seeing there could be conflicts of interest according to clause 2 (h) between the private and public broadcasting sectors. I say tentacles are being prepared there with a view to founding a private company and, under clause 39 (1) (m), to allowing the C.B.C. to buy shares, and thereby solve the conflict of interests. And who would benefit therefrom? Power Corporation. That is the collusion and the kind of fraud that may follow, that will follow the passing of a measure stating that where a conflict arises between the private and the public sectors, the latter must prevail. Then, having powerful interests at play, the private sector will seek, by the well-known means of collusion and fraud, to protect its interests and the public sector, which is quite vulnerable in this kind of collusion, will be victimized. Why all this? Because, in order to watch over its interests, the private sector will have been forced to make deals with the public sector, the C.B.C. in this case.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this must be denounced. I cannot obviously go into all the details now. I shall undertake to do so when we come to clause 39 (1) (m).
I should like simply today to draw the attention of the committee to the possible consequences of such a provision, which always decides in favour of the public sector and can and will lead to some kind of collusion like that one.
The same thing happened in the case of the Canadian Pacific scandal 100 years ago, when the public sector was the victim of a collusion of that kind.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that for that reason I will wait until we come to clause 39 (1) (m) to bring in more precise details, which may have an effect on several members.
January 31, 1968

Then I shall be in order, for I am afraid I would be digressing somewhat from the subject before the committee if I referred to this now. Nevertheless, I believe those precisions should be sufficient for us to be on guard against a provision which will encourage the private sector to collude with the public sector, since it is stated that where any conflict of interest arises, the objectives of the public sector must prevail.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the committee ready for the question?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot support the subamendment. If I interpret it correctly, it says in so many words that a conflict between the private and public sectors of broadcasting shall be resolved in the public interest. Paragraph (h) begins with the words, "where any conflict arises". The purport of the paragraph is that where any such conflict arises it shall be resolved in the public interest. If that is not its meaning, then in the name of heaven on what basis does the Board of Broadcast Governors decide any question that comes before it? Surely any decision should be in the public interest. Surely that is the basis of all that body's decisions.
The subamendment seeks to say that where there is a conflict between the public and private sectors of broadcasting, the public interest shall prevail, the inference being that where there is no conflict, the public interest shall not prevail. Obviously that is silly. If the public interest is to be a deciding factor in the decisions of the board, why do we turn around and say that it must look after the public interest only where there is a conflict. This raises doubts as to whether those concerned would always use the public interest as a criteria-whether, as public spirited men they would not always put it first in any case.
My view is that we cannot allow this subclause to pass without amendment, and to my way of thinking there is no point in simply including an amendment which says that we in this house are concerned about the public interest and believe the public interest should be paramount. We would accomplish nothing by an approach of this kind. As the subclause stands it is really a declaration by the government that the C.B.C. should always have preference in the case of a dispute, and we on this side feel it is too strongly worded. I hope the hon. member concerned will withdraw his
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting amendment. I intend to vote against it for the reasons I have advanced, and then to support an amendment the effect of which would be to soften the preference afforded to the C.B.C., in the hope that it will be generally supported.


Howard Earl Johnston: May I ask whether the hon. member's comments about the subamendment I moved would apply also to the amendment which was before the committee last evening, and in connection with which many of his hon. friends spoke so well?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I will check the amendment of last night. I believe that what the hon. member has said is substantially correct. I have spoken to several of my hon. friends and they are not much enamoured of the phrase "it will be resolved in the public interest" because it merely reiterates something which is a basis of every decision taken in these circumstances. No decision has yet been taken and, as I say, I hope we can dispose of this matter.


David Vaughan Pugh: Having listened to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and discussed this matter with a number of people, I cannot help feeling that, by the inclusion of subclause (h), we are searching for possible conflicts, and then deciding that should conflicts arise a decision must be awarded in favour of the national broadcasting system.
It seems to me that subclause (h) might well be struck out altogether. By its inclusion we are suggesting that there are bound to be conflicts and that a determination must be made in favour of the C.B.C. Of course there will be conflicts; everyone knows that. But I cannot see that matters will be helped by anticipating them in a subclause of the bill. Should the government still feel there is a need for something to be written into the legislation, I suggest words on the following lines: "It shall be deemed that the best interest of the public is served when the objectives of the national broadcasting policy shall prevail." Obviously as the bill now stands the interests of the national broadcasting service must always prevail. If the bill were weighted in favour of the private interests then the private interests would win out. We should remember that a regulatory body is being set up to adjudicate on these questions. Having set forth the objectives of the national service in the bill, as we have done, the regulatory body is bound to take account of those objectives and would be unable to find in favour of the private services. Would it not be possible
6220	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting to get together and decide on a form of words which did not oifend anybody?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We did.


David Vaughan Pugh: Perhaps the best thing to do would be to throw out the whole subclause. I am not at all sure that the minister herself would not like to see this happen.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I have not taken part in the debate so far today, though I did speak briefly last night. Listening to the discussion of this subclause it seems to me we have got ourselves into a somewhat ridiculous impasse and that our procedure ought to provide us with a way out.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It does: Vote.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is obvious that there is a division of opinion, but it seems to me there is a point at which there could be a meeting of minds. There seems to be an effort in this direction and I would not say it is entirely in one part of the house rather than another. Several members on the minister's side feel that this subclause could be improved, and there are others over here who believe it ought to be improved.
Possibly if some sensible procedure were followed we could arrive at a wording which would be acceptable to members on both sides. I rise merely to point out that the main objection to the subclause arises from the last two words "must prevail". I do not intend to propose a further amendment-there have been half a dozen already, most of them along the same lines. Everyone agrees, I think, that there should be some imbalance toward the national broadcasting system, but this phrase to the effect that the cause of the national broadcasting system must prevail is altogether too strong. If we could agree to soften those words we would be ad idem here instead of spending the next half hour voting on the subamendment, voting on the amendment and then considering a further amendment which I understand is to be produced, followed possibly by a further subamendment. Let us suppose they are all thrown out. We would be back considering the original clause, and merely voting on that, for or against, would satisfy no one. I feel the minister should suggest some way out of this impasse. She says she is satisfied with the present wording but it must be obvious that even if she is satisfied a large number of hon. members in this committee are not. It is my belief that this could be worded in such a

DEBATES	January 31, 1968
way that it could be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: Let us have a vote.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My hon. friend says, let us have a vote. That is a great expression, but it very seldom settles anything when you do not know exactly what you are voting on.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, in case it may be of some assistance to hon. members voting on this subamendment I would like to point out that I shall be suggesting an amendment later. It will be to the effect that between the words "system" and "the" in line 35 there be inserted the phrase "all other factors being equal." In other words where there is a conflict between the two systems and everything else seems equal, then the legislation would say that the objectives of the national broadcasting system must prevail. As suggested now there could be a conflict where 10 per cent of the argument is in favour of the public part and 90 per cent in favour of the private, and this subclause could be taken as a direction that since there exists conflict at all, the public broadcasting service must prevail. I believe my suggested amendment would bring the legislation to the reasonable level which we are all seeking.
Subamendment (Mr. Johnston) negatived: Yeas, 5; nays, 64.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question on the amendment?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to comment on the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Halifax, and in particular on the word "paramount" that appears therein. I wish to point out that I did not speak last night on subclause (h). I thought the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre should have been passed by the committee, and I would have voted for it had it been put. Now, however, we have this amendment with the word "paramount" in it.
It seems to me that whenever anyone brings up the subject of community antenna television in relation to the radio and television world of Canada somebody immediately screams that most of the cable systems are owned by foreigners, and drags in the name of Famous Players. Famous Players (Canada) Corporation is a Canadian organization and
January 31, 1968

has been recognized by the laws of the land. After they have done a little bit of screaming about C.A.T.V. systems being owned by Famous Players (Canada) Corporation they come through with the statement that Famous Players jumps to the whip of Paramount Pictures of California, and suggest that Paramount is in supreme control of C.A.T.V. operations in Canada. If those people want to criticize C.A.T.V. on the grounds that the Paramount organization is in supreme control of a Canadian corporation with an entirely different name, how can they stand up now and argue that paramount does not mean paramount?
Most of the time reference is made to Paramount Pictures, and it is emphasized that it is in supreme control of its subsidiary organizations, and that Paramount does as it wishes. I have never agreed with that argument in the past, but if there are people going to argue that Paramount Pictures is supreme as shown by its name, how are they going to argue that "paramount" appearing in this amendment does not mean "supreme" and "paramount"?
I am opposed to the meaning of this amendment in that it gives the whip hand to the publicly owned sector of the radio and television world of Canada. It is interesting that the last two words in subclause (h) are "must prevail." On numerous occasions we have been told that clause 2 is only declaratory. The Secretary of State herself told the hon. member for Lapointe that it is only declaratory, that it is not compulsory, when he was protesting on the subclause with regard to ownership of Canadian broadcasting systems. But let me show you the velvet glove on the iron hand.
Clause 2(b) contains the words "should be effectively owned." We are told that this is only declaratory. Then in subclause (c) we have these words, "all persons licensed to carry on broadcasting undertakings have a responsibility." That might just as well read, "should exercise the responsibility inherent in the licence." In subclause (d) we have the phrase, "the programming... should be varied." I repeat "should be." Then in subclause (e) we are told "all Canadians are entitled." This is simply declaratory; the minister says it is only declaratory. Then in subclause (f) we are told "there should be provided." I repeat "should be"-just declaratory, just declaratory.
Then in subclause (g) we have "the national broadcasting service should." This is just declaratory; the minister says so. Then in
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting subclause (i) we have "facilities should be provided"-just declaratory, just declaratory. Then in subclause (j) we come to "the regulation and supervision of the Canadian broadcasting system should be flexible"-just declaratory, just declaratory.
I have shown you the velvet glove. Now look at the iron fist in subclause (h), and in this amendment which would say that the desires of the publicly owned broadcasting system must prevail. There is no auxiliary verb "should" in there. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka when they state that this has got to be softened. I agree with the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke when he points out that the desires and demands of the publicly owned system in the Canadian radio and television world do not always coincide with the public interest.
There is a great majority in this country that cannot understand much of the programming being put on by the C.B.C., and I for one will not stand here and vote for any declaration that the desires, wishes and demands of the publicly owned sector in radio and television shall prevail, must prevail, any time there is a conflict with the private sector. This should be decided in the public interest and on no other basis. That the C.B.C. must be paramount should not appear in any legislation brought in by this cabinet. I could not support any reference to the C.B.C. being paramount, and I cannot support a subclause which says that its desires must prevail. All those words "should be" make the velvet glove, but I think I have pointed out how the velvet glove is on an iron hand. I cannot support subclause (h) the way it stands. I could have supported the amendment brought in last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Is the
committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: The question is on the following motion by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. McCleave):
That clause 2(h) of Bill C-163 be amended by deleting same and substituting therefor:
"(h) where any conflict arises between the objectives of the national broadcasting service and the interests of the private element of the Canadian broadcasting system, it shall be resolved in the public interest but paramount consideration shall be given to the objectives of the national broadcasting service."
6222	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting
Amendment (Mr. McCIeave) agreed to: Yeas, 54; Nays, 22.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: I declare the amendment carried. Shall the subclause as amended carry?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I have not tried to figure out-


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I understood that when this particular amendment was placed before the committee it was moved by the hon. member for Halifax that clause 2(h) of Bill C-163 be amended by deleting the same and substituting therefor the new subclause (h). That now having been passed, subclause (h) has been passed by the committee.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Oh, no.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Not only has the subclause not been passed, but obviously the clause has not been passed as amended.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: There is no subclause as amended, other than what we just voted on.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The chairman just called it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: And that is why I rose on a point of order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do not think it matters what the minister says has happened, because of the words used. What in fact was voted on represents only part of the subclause. The subclause was repeated and only the last line was deleted. So, the subclause was amended and we voted only on the amendment, not on the subclause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Read what it says.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, you called the subclause as amended and I wish to speak on it.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I should like to ask for a ruling on this, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe there can be any further amendment. I believe subclause (h) has carried.


Mr. Pritiie:: Yes.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is the
opinion of the Chair that after this amendment has been moved and accepted it is not possible to amend it again because it appears to be a complete amendment.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that most of us in this
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
DEBATES	January 31, 1968
committee feel that the Chair called the question on the amendment, not as to whether the subclause should pass as amended. It is my belief that whenever there is an amendment a vote is called, but certainly those of us who voted for or against this amendment felt there would be an opportunity to vote for or against the subclause as amended and that there is always room for another amendment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: That is not true.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Until the subclause has been voted on it has not been disposed of by the committee, and certainly there has been no vote called in this committee on the subclause as amended or on the clause itself. The only vote called was on the amendment.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: There may be a technicality involved and I am wondering whether the committee would agree that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona should give his opinion.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Give his opinion? I am always happy to hear the hon. member's opinion, but the rules of the house and parliamentary procedure do not happen to allow that. I have before me a copy of what was sent around the committee, which was read to the committee by the chairman, and which I am sure the record will show. It is as I read it previously. The subclause was deleted by that amendment and there was a substitution. Our parliamentary rules do not permit this subclause, having been passed, being amended ad nauseam, or subamended again. I would therefore again ask for a ruling from the Chair in respect of whether this subclause has been passed.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. minister indicate whether she heard the Chair call for a vote on the amendment?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I suggest the Chair called a vote on the motion to amend.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Then we still have to vote on the subclause.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The chairman read the whole thing, beginning with "where any conflict arises-"


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, my substantial interest is that we get along with this bill. However, I think that fairness has to be considered in this matter. When the vote was called on the amendment by the hon. member for Halifax, and when that vote carried, all
January 31, 1968

we did procedurally was to substitute the wording of the amendment for the wording of subclause (h) as it was originally in the bill. I submit you still have to call the question on subclause (h) as amended.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Once you call that, it is debatable and amendable. As this happened so quickly I have not had time to find the citation, neither has the Secretary of State had time to find a citation supporting her view. It is the common and ordinary practice that an amendment of this kind merely changes the wording. Now we have to decide whether we accept that wording. For example, we might vote it down altogether or do away with it completely. We might also make further changes. I believe that we should get this matter settled, but I also think that members' rights to amend should not be cut off unfairly.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I do not propose to cut off anything unfairly, nor do I think there is any clause open to amendment and a vote of the committee forever. Is the hon. member now suggesting something completely different can now be moved to delete subclause (h) which, as a result of the committee's acceptance of the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax, has been passed? Does the hon. member suggest that it can be completely written out so that the committee can start again, and that this is a process which never has finality? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is finality in the sense that eventually all the permutations will run out. Until they run out the matter is still before us. The committee has not yet decided whether subclause (h) in the form submitted by the hon. member for Halifax is accepted. All we have decided is that the wording suggested shall be voted on instead of the other wording. The proposition now before us is debatable, and if it is debatable it is amendable. Just as the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke could move a subamendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Halifax that was before us, I submit that someone can do the same now.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: After it has been voted?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Postmaster General asks whether this can be done after this has been voted. I hate to have to say this over and over again, but all we have done as a result
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting of our vote is record the decision of the committee that the wording of the amendment of the hon. member for Halifax shall take the place of the government's wording. That is now before us to discuss, debate, defeat or amend.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It is true that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona stated to the committee before this amendment was moved that he intended to move a new amendment. There is apparently a technicality involved here. As far as I can see, the rule that applies is to be found in citation 402 (3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
It is irregular to propose to leave out all the words from "That" to the end of a clause in order to substitute other words, as such an amendment is in the nature of a new clause.
Under the circumstances, I think that probably the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona should be permitted or should be given an opportunity to move an amendment, because he had stated to the committee that he intended to do this before the vote was called for this amendment.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a
point of order, Mr. Chairman-


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, you made the point that in the circumstances the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona should be permitted to move an amendment. Is the Chair suggesting that this is the only further amendment and the only further discussion that may be permitted on this subclause? There may be others who wish to prolong the examination of the subclause.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for the floor on the ground that the subclause is still open for debate, on the ruling Your Honour has just given, to the effect that an amendment which only changes some of the words cannot, as the minister suggests, be deleting the clause and substituting a new one. If the wording were so designed, it would have been ruled out of order. Since the Chair put only the amendment and the subclause is now being put, I am asking for hon. members to speak to the motion whether the subclause should now be passed.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: There is probably a misunderstanding here, but the amendment, as I read it, actually deletes the subclause. The authority for the decision that was made is citation 402 (3) of Beauchesne's
6224	COMMONS
Canadian Policy on Broadcasting fourth edition. Because this was not drawn by the Chair to the attention of the committee, I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona should be permitted to move the amendment that he declared he intended to move before this amendment was read to the committee.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, would the Chair render a decision on the point of order which I raised a moment ago? Is the Chair ruling that only one more address to this subclause will be permitted, or is it ruling that the debate is open and further addresses to this subclause can be made?


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Actually, it is not possible for the Chair to anticipate further proceedings at this time.


Mr. Nowlan:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the difficulty in the preliminary ruling of the Chair is easily seen in the fact that the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona may be moving an amendment which Your Honour says, with qualification, he can move because he indicated before we got into this position that he would move it. I may stand up and move that the whole thing be struck out, and very likely will, because I think that subclause (h), as I said last night, should be struck out, and we will then get over this impasse. If the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona is going to move another amendment, this is a new ball game, even though it is the same old subclause.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Chair to reconsider this matter. I thought the citation Your Honour read was most helpful, in that you said it had not been brought to your attention. But it is certainly not too late for the Chair to make a ruling on this question, because we are on the point of order. If we are to listen to the minister, after reading citation 402 of Beauchesne the Chair must say that because no one moved such a motion we must overlook that rule, rather than the Chair now giving a ruling that the interpretation of the amendment, in changing the words, is simply an amendment and is not deleting the subclause, as suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who said that when you change the words you do not delete the whole subclause. This is therefore consistent with the vote that Your Honour called, and I submit that your memory is the same as ours on this point, that when you called the vote you called it on the amendment. This is, again, consistent with
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.!
DEBATES	January 31, 1968
citation 402. That is the only thing you could have called the vote on, otherwise Your Honour would have had to rule out that amendment because it was deleting the subclause. Since that was not done, I submit that the Chair cannot be placed in the position now of saying that the Chair misled the committee. The Chair is applying the rule in the only way consistent with the rules, consistent with the rights of members and consistent with the ruling you have made, namely that we are now discussing subclause (h) as amended.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order and to make a helpful suggestion. I think it is the general feeling of the committee that we should allow the hon. member to proceed; but I suggest that this matter be brought to the attention of the committee on procedure so that they may take the problem with them to Great Britain and find out what is the practice in that parliament.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to the point of order raised by the minister. I think the committee has lost track of the stage we have reached. Actually, there is before the committee a motion by the minister that we adopt clause 2. The wisdom of the committee was that we should break the clause down into its various subclauses and proceed with those. Therefore, in effect what is before the committee is a motion by the minister that we adopt clause 2. That motion has not yet been carried.
This clause has been subjected to amendment and will be subjected to amendment in the future to any length that hon. members wish to go. As far as clauses are concerned, you may strike out, add or insert words; but it is not normal, if you will read citation 404 of Beauchesne-and not only is not normal, but it is not right-to do what was done in the amendment that was before the committee a minute ago. Citation 404 of Beauchesne reads as follows:
An amendment may not be proposed to insert words at the commencement of a clause with a view to proposing an alternative scheme to that contained in the clause, or to leave out from the first word to the end of the clause, in order to substitute other words, or to effect a redrafting of the clause-such amendments being in the nature of a new clause. In such a case, the regular course is to negative the question, that the clause stand part of the bill, and to bring up a new clause at the proper time.
Had the motion of the minister been voted upon and the subclause struck out, it would have been open to the committee to bring in
January 31, 1968

a new subclause; but as we stand at the present moment, the rule is clear, that this subclause, having been amended, is still subject to amendment in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. Actually, this is the point the Chair was trying to draw to the attention of the members of the committee. There was a technical difficulty. This appears to be a departure from the regular practice of the house, but I think the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona should be heard at this time.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is not the point.


Some hon. Members:: Five o'clock.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Chairman, may I call it five o'clock.
Progress reported.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


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



AGRICULTURE


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of immediately introducing legislation to provide the following increase of the compensation paid for the cattle slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act:	(a) purebred
cattle, $200 (b) crossbred cattle, $125.

He said: Mr. Speaker, on May 9 last I was privileged to put on the order paper the notice of motion which you have just read and which I should like to quote again:
In the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of immediately introducing legislation to provide the following increase of the compensation paid for the cattle slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Disease Act: (a) purebred cattle, $200.00 (b) crossbred cattle, $125.00.
Mr. Speaker, I decided to put the motion I have just read on the order paper following conversations which I had with farmers and stock-breeders in my region. They put pressure on me and made representations urging me to take this position.
Agriculture
I have the honour of representing here a riding where stock-breeding is a major industry. The region of Saint-Hyacinthe is renowned for its purebred livestock. The interested farmers in Saint-Hyacinthe itself to to a great deal of trouble in order to improve their livestock. As you know, for instance the former dairy school is now in the Institute of Agricultural Technology. There is also a veterinary school and, near the institute, there is the artificial insemination centre.
During the years when the artificial insemination centre was in operation, the farmers of my region made good use of the facilities provided by the government of the province. As a result, the herds of all the farmers and particularly of livestock breeders have improved considerably.
Anyone who had the opportunity to viEit the Saint-Hyacinthe exhibition, for instance, where six or seven surrounding counties as well as the Rougemont county are represented, comes to the conclusion that the farmers in the Richelieu area are quite prosperous and eager to have first grade cattle.
Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, that such improvement is not possible without significant expenses on the part of the farmers concerned and, from one year to the next, the operating cost of a farm rises.
The Animal Contagious Diseases Act was implemented a few years ago and amendments to increase the compensation paid for the cattle slaughtered in case of contagious disease have been brought in. It was in August 1958 that such compensations were increased for the last time; previously, the compensation paid for a slaughtered purebred animal was $100, and it was raised to $140. On the other hand, the compensation paid for a cross-bred animal, which was $40, was raised to $70.
The aim of that motion is not to grant a subsidy to farmers whose animals are struck by a contagious disease. It is recognized that, in some cases, the present indemnity covers quite well the losses incurred but, in cases where the meat cannot be eaten, it is also recognized that the present indemnity is much lower than the loss incurred.
For those reasons the members of the Catholic Farmers Union I met as well as members of other farm organizations in my riding have asked me to make representations to the government to improve further the situation, so that a breeder whose herd is struck by an infectious disease will not lose too much.

January 31, 1968
Agriculture
If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) really wants the farmers not to suffer in cases such as those I have just mentioned, he will surely have that motion passed at once, so that the farmers will not be liable to sometimes irretrievable losses.
We merely have to recall, for instance, the epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease we had in 1948, if I remember well, to realize how fast a farmer, a breeder, can be let to the brink of ruin.
There is always a possibility of such epidemics invading our land, so much so that the department takes proper steps by placing animals imported into our country in quarantine. It is only fair and reasonable for the government to take such measures for the protection of our animals' health. But it is also reasonable, I think, to put forward the views of Canadian farmers and livestock breeders and claim fair protection for them.
To prevent the Minister of Agriculture from saying: We are well disposed, but you did not give us time to take action, I immediately end my remarks and give the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) the opportunity to take part in the debate and make recommendations allowing this motion I just moved to become an accomplished fact. I should like to ask him to act in such a way that we will be called upon to vote before the private members' hour is over.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I have listened with considerable interest to the motion presented by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) and the tribute he has paid to the livestock breeders in his constituency. I am well aware of the high quality of the livestock produced in that area. I think it is constituencies such as his which have contributed to the great name Canada enjoys throughout the world for outstanding livestock. He has suggested also he is quite confident it would be the wish of the Canadian Department of Agriculture to provide reasonable protection in the event of loss.
The resolution moved by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot states that, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of immediately introducing legislation to provide for an increase in the compensation paid for cattle slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.

This act is designed to prevent the introduction or spread of serious animal diseases in Canada and to prevent the export of diseased livestock or livestock products, thus maintaining the excellent record this country enjoys throughout the world for healthy, disease free livestock. In its animal disease control and eradication program, the department has for many years provided compensation to owners whose animals have been ordered destroyed. There are two broad headings under which this compensation is paid. One case deals with cattle ordered slaughtered under an area or herd eradication program, such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. The other is where the department is dealing with a more serious contagious disease such as an outbreak of hog cholera in swine or the outbreak of foot and mouth disease such as occurred in 1952.
Under the area of herd eradication program, officers of the department conduct testing programs for cattle diseases such as tuberculosis and brucellosis. Any infected animals are destroyed and compensation paid to the owners to provide assistance in replacing the diseased animals with disease free stock, thus improving their herds. During the last fiscal year compensation paid to owners who had animals destroyed totalled almost $1 million.
Under these programs for the eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis, it should be pointed out that any animals required to be slaughtered under the provisions of the act which are infected with tuberculosis and brucellosis, are a potential source of loss to the owner even if those programs were not carried out. The owner therefore does benefit materially and directly by the removal of a diseased animal from his herd, since it is not only a danger to the health of the rest of the herd but also reduces his potential returns from his production. On the other hand, it is also in the national interest from the consumer's point of view that our livestock products should come from healthy animals.
Under the area of herd eradication program, the present rates of compensation are $140 purebred and $70 for grade animals. Here, we are dealing with individual animals, not the destruction of an entire herd. In another example where an entire herd is to be destroyed, compensation is paid to the owner at market value. In this case, which is somewhat different from the case involving brucellosis and tuberculosis, not only the infected but all exposed and contact animals are ordered destroyed. This action is taken as
January 31, 1968

a measure to protect the total livestock industry and to prevent the spread of the disease throughout the country. It follows, then, that the owner of such a herd is compensated at full value.
It should not be overlooked in the case of tuberculosis or brucellosis that in addition to the compensation awarded by the department, the owner also receives the meat or carcass salvage value from the packaging establishment where the animals are slaughtered. Therefore an owner's compensation returns, made up of the department's compensation plus the meat salvage value, go a long way toward assisting the owner in obtaining disease free animals.
Should the reactor animal be condemned at the time of slaughter as unfit for food, the department pays the owner the equivalent of the meat salvage carcass value so that in any case the owner's returns are the same. Notwithstanding this, we have been concerned about actual compensation values being paid owners, particularly the existing relationship between the compensation an owner now receives from the department and the actual market value of the animal. Consideration is now being given to a review of the compensation paid for animals slaughtered under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly to support the principle of the motion moved by the hon. member because I know from personal knowledge that the present compensation is not fair, in view of the changed economic circumstances that farmers face today. I was interested to listen to the explanation of the parliamentary secretary and to hear him say that this matter is under consideration by the department at the moment. I do think, in view of the fact that a farmer would only receive $140 for a purebred animal or $70 for a crossbred animal or grade animal-it depends upon which part of the country you come from which term you use-consideration should be given to increasing the compensation. I was glad to hear the parliamentary secretary say that if the entire herd is destroyed the farmer is compensated at market value. I was not sure of that prior to the parliamentary secretary mentioning the fact.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of concern to certain types of farmers, particularly those who are dealing with dairy and beef cattle, and in some cases with swine. I feel that the motion is of such importance to
Agriculture
the persons directly concerned that it should be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural rehabilitation for consideration. If this were done, I feel we would have an opportunity to get the facts as they exist today from the farmer's point of view. The committee would then have the opportunity to hear representatives from farmers organizations in Canada, from departmental officials and from other officials directly concerned with, shall I say, establishing fair play in the matter of compensation for animals that have to be destroyed. The committee would also have the opportunity to study the representations made on all aspects of the question and to make recommendations to the house.
I urge the parliamentary secretary to give consideration to my suggestion. I would be delighted if before the hour were over he would rise in his place and say that he quite agrees with my suggesetion that this whole matter be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural rehabilitation.
I know the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) will have something to say on this important question and I know also that my colleague from Timmins (Mr. Martin) wishes to say a few words, so I will resume my seat and leave the field open to other members who wish to speak.


Mr. Florian Cote (Nicolel-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt my colleagues will allow me to rise and say a few words in order to support the motion presented by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard).
Like his area, my own is very much advanced as far as the dairy industry is concerned, and the quality of the dairy cattle there is perhaps as good as that of his own area. I know the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot knows my constituency very well, since he spent about a month there before September 19, 1966. Therefore, he will admit that its dairy industry is flourishing.
Moreover, I am perhaps in a sufficiently good position to support that motion, since I had made that proposal myself when I was a leader of the Catholic Farmers Union in the diocese of Nicolet. Further, last winter I discussed with the minister steps to be taken in order that the farmers may not suffer too great hardship when they are unfortunately the victims of such a calamity.

January 31, 1968
Agriculture
I am speaking of this from personal knowledge, because when I was with the C.F.U., I often had to prepare statements and try to balance the budget of farmers whose herd had suffered from this terrible sickness which is brucellosis. Let me say in passing that losses due to tuberculosis are covered by the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and it is almost checked in Canada. Furthermore brucellosis is also being checked. Considerable efforts have been made by the government in this direction since nearly 4.5 per cent of the cattle in Canada was affected by brucellosis in 1957 and this percentage has been brought down to 1.5 per cent in 1967. This makes us realize that the situation has greatly improved.
On the other hand, while this percentage was decreasing, the value of the cattle increased threefold. In 1957 the farmers were receiving a sum of $70 when they had to destroy cattle worth $150 to $175. Today the same cattle has increased in value by $250, $300, even $350 but the compensation has remained at the same point.
So, I think it is normal that this compensation should be increased to $200 and to $125. Even if we were to be more generous, if the minister agreed or if his estimates allowed a compensation of $125 for cross-bred cattle, we would be more generous than the C.F.U. requests.
This year, I attended the congress of the C.F.U. and I examined with the utmost interest the demands that were made to increase compensation to $100 for cross-bred cattle and to $200 for pure-bred cattle. This was being asked by Quebec Farmers Association. But I think that in asking $125 the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot is possibly more generous and I support him, because if the farmers are asking only $100, it is because they are not used to receiving considerable compensation and that they cannot have the act amended.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) is fully aware of the problem and I can tell the member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot that I have discussed this with the minister. I have shown him that the problem is important, because I have met the leaders of the C.F.U. of my area and those of the St. Hyacinthe area. These leaders are colleagues of mine and, furthermore, they are people with whom I have worked on the social level. So, they knew that by speaking to the member for Nicolet-Yamaska, they could possibly exert greater pressures.
[Mr. Cote (Nicolet-Yamaska) .1
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I fully endorse this request and I hope that we will see some change made in the course of the year.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the motion of my colleague. Stockmen have long been aware that the present compensation for slaughtered animals is inadequate. In view of rising costs and values it is no longer realistic at this time.
I do not wish to question the terminology of the motion, but I should like to refer to purebred cattle as registered cattle. When applying for compensation for purebred animals one must produce their registered papers in order to prove they are purebred.
There are many t.b., Bangs, or brucellosis-free areas in Canada today. In fact, in many areas there have been very few reactors in use of late. The calfhood vaccination program against brucellosis protects animals against this disease, and because these diseases have to a great extent been eliminated there is not much danger of the cost of compensation to the government being as great as it once was.
There are dangers in compensation that is too small, and some of these have shown up in the hesitancy of some owners to report suspicious cases of disease in time to check its spread. In other words, there is the tendency on the part of some owners not to co-operate with the authorities because they know that if certain of their animals are condemned they will get little return for them. An example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the purchase of a registered animal at a very high price. The animal would have been tested before sale for both t.b. and brucellosis, but the new owner is rather nervous about having the animal retested in case there is a reaction. And you cannot blame him. Therefore I think there is great need for a more realistic compensation figure when an animal or a group of animals is condemned.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) for bringing forward this resolution. Although there has not been too much time for research, it is certainly overdue. I went back over the history of compensation from 1952. In that year the compensation paid under the act for purebred cattle was limited to $100 and for grade cattle to $40. The same figures applied, with some change in the
January 31, 1968

method of payment, in 1953-54. In the amendments introduced in 1958, the government of the day saw fit to increase the compensation for thoroughbred cattle to $140 and for grade cattle to $70.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I looked up the report of the livestock market in Toronto for yesterday and found that these prices are quite out of line with present day cattle prices. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore) has mentioned cows and high priced breeding animals in the dairy end of the business. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary who, I notice, is now in his seat, that it is most unfair where a farmer has bought a $10,000 herd sire, only to find later that the herd sire reacts to a tuberculosis or brucellosis test, to pay that farmer only $140 in compensation for the herd sire, plus anything he may get for the carcass for bologna purposes, provided the carcass is not condemned. That is quite wrong and is one feature of the entire compensation program that is completely out of line.
Under similar circumstances, if the farmer were unfortunate enough to have his whole herd condemned for foot and mouth disease or some of the other diseases for which whole herds can be condemned, he would get back his full $10,000 that he paid for the herd sire, plus the full value of every one of his animals in the herd.
Coming down to the grade level of cattle, sometimes known as the cross bred level, where there are no certificates of pure breeding, today a cow in full milk in a good dairy herd is worth approximately $300. If this cow should react to a tuberculosis test the owner would receive in compensation $70, plus the salvage value of the cow's carcass for meat, again provided the carcass is not condemned.
If the carcass is fit for meat it will carry a value today of approximately $175 to $200-say, $180. So the farmer gets the compensation of $70 and the salvage value of this cow, if she is otherwise healthy and in good flesh conditon. He gets $180. The man therefore would receive for his $300 cow approximately $250 and would be put to all the trouble of replacing the cow, getting her to market and having her processed. Also he has to undergo the nuisance of having the cow taken from him compulsorily.
Ordinarily, when land is expropriated an extra amount is paid over and above the value of the land, which is compulsorily taken, and that extra amount is for the nuisance of expropriation. Cattlemen who have their
Agriculture
cattle taken from them compulsorily should be given equal consideration.
So much for the milk cow. What about the beef man? What could happen to him under present scales of values? If you went down to Toronto and bought a stocker steer for feeding and finishing, you would find that your ideal stocker steer would weigh around 700 pounds and is worth today around 28 cents per pound. You would pay around $200 for your stocker steer plus the expense of getting him from Toronto to the farmer's location -trucking expenses, and so on. Suppose that in a week or two your stocker steer should react under a tuberculosis test? The owner would get $70 in compensation, and that would be the maximum he could get. The salvage value of that steer is not the original price because, if you remember, originally that steer was worth 28 cents per pound. But as a condemned steer having to go to market and be killed, that stocker steer would go as a common steer at about 17 cents a pound, and so the farmer would get about $119 for his stocker steer, which originally had cost him over $200.


Bruce Silas Beer: Plus $70.


William Howell Arthur Thomas: I am sorry; I should have said that he will get $119 plus $70, or a total of $189. He would incur some loss on his steer in addition to the expense he originally incurred for having to get that steer from Toronto to his farm, and he would also have the expense of getting it from his farm back to market.
I think the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) has been conservative with a small "c", and even with a large "C", in his proposal that compensation for animals slaughtered under the authority of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act should be increased to $200 for pure bred cattle and to $125 for grade cattle. If I were moving the motion I should have suggested much higher figures.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot should be congratulated for bringing this matter forward, and the parliamentary secretary should be congratulated for his remarks, which show that the government knows that the compensation figures should change. The parliamentary secretary and the hon. member would be doing the farmers of this country, the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian public a service



$230 COMMONS DEBATES

[Stage Direction]
January 31, 1968
Agriculture
if this matter were sent to the standing committee on agriculture, so that an adjudication could be made.
I think the previous speaker chose bad examples, because in one instance there was a difference of only $11 between the cost price of the animal and the compensation to be paid. Those figures do not show the extent of the problem, which becomes more apparent when you deal with pure bred cattle. In my part of the country the average Holstein cow, when sold, would fetch about $650 or $700. They run anywhere from about $400 to $1,000, and the average is about $650.
In England the authorities face difficulties because farmers are reluctant to report. The situation there is out of hand now, and there is the danger always that it may get out of hand here. Farmers should not have reason to be reluctant to report the incidence of brucellosis, or even where that disease is suspected. There are ways of knowing even without tests, whether a cow has brucellosis. Farmers are usually aware that there is difficulty, and sometimes they are reluctant to have tests performed.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
In cases of this kind there may be a reluctance among farmers to report the disease because of the financial loss they may incur. Keeping an area free of brucellosis over a period of time is a difficult undertaking, particularly when breeding stock is allowed to move through community auctions. I suggest that when the agriculture committee studies this subject, if it is the wish of the minister, it should work out a formula by which farmers will be paid compensation more in keeping with the price of the animal affected, and the actual loss sustained. The fact that we have changed the compensation rate only twice in the last 20 years indicates that we have not kept up with the times. I am well aware of the danger of allowing civil servants to determine the amount of compensation to be paid and it seems to me there should be guide lines which would enable compensation to be provided in keeping with the loss suffered. This would help to remove the danger of farmers neglecting to make reports and causing a calamity as a result. Inadequate compensation may have been partly responsible for the serious outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain at the present time.
I do not see how the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, could go wrong by accepting a notice of motion which

asks for consideration of this question and reference of the subject to the committee on agriculture. The present provisions could be changed in a number of ways which would be of benefit to the Canadian livestock program, and to all who suffer loss because of contagious diseases.
Mr. Viateur Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, it affords me pleasure to speak to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard). In the five years I have been sitting in this house, it is the first time, I believe, that I am in a position to endorse a recommendation made by a member opposite, since it is designed to help farmers.
The compensation paid at present for animals recommended for slaughter may have been justified a few years ago, let us say until 1963, when milk and beef were cheaper. Today, I think a farmer must pay up to $500 for a good crossbred milk cow. Therefore, a compensation of $70 is no longer justified. For purebred cattle, I believe there is even more difference.
Therefore, I am pleased to support the motion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot and to know that the matter will be referred to the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development.
I congratulate the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot for putting that motion and I can assure him of our co-operation.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, it seems that all who have spoken on this motion have expressed the opinion that the subject should be directed to the attention of the standing committee on agriculture. I can add little to what has already been said and I will simply move, seconded by my hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard), that the motion be directed to the standing committee on agriculture and that the house adjourn.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to move his motion he will have to submit it in writing to the Chair.


Bruce Silas Beer: I have been invited by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) to comment on his invitation to have this whole matter sent to the
January 31, 1968

committee on agriculture and rural development. The views which have been expressed in this chamber have been very well taken.
I must indicate, as I did earlier, that the question of compensation is periodically reviewed and that it is currently under review with the thought of increasing the compensation which may be awarded. I see no harm in having the subject referred to the committee on agriculture and I would think that if the house were generally of a mind we could simply agree without a formal motion to have this subject sent to the committee on agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion simply be dropped and that the matter be referred to the committee without a formal motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McNulty:: Then perhaps I could move that the house do now adjourn.
Agriculture


William Arnold Peters: Before the hon. member moves that we adjourn, might I ask whether the parliamentary secretary is prepared to bring in the motion which would direct this matter to the attention of the committee on agriculture?


Bruce Silas Beer: I believe that has been done already by unanimous agreement. I am quite confident that it will be done.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to disagree with the parliamentary secretary. There is really no motion before the house. There is only the undertaking of the parliamentary secretary that he will take the necessary steps to have the matter submitted to the committee. This would have to be done by a formal motion which could be placed on the order paper in the usual way.
It being ten minutes before six o'clock, by unanimous consent Mr. Speaker adjourned the house, without question put.

Thursday, February 1, 1968