1969-02-17

Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make on motions a short statement on a subject in which a great many members have expressed an interest. As of today the five day post office delivery week and the new method of sorta-tion and delivery known as single mail processing go into effect.
As hon. members know, there have been in recent weeks continuous discussions between the unions and departmental officials over these steps. Differences between the two sides have been essentially resolved. According to the latest information available to me there will be no strike, no work stoppage, and no work to rule organized by the unions.

The new system will make it possible to save $13 million. It will also result in the abolition of 2,084 jobs. In spite of that, there will be no lay-offs. All those concerned will be kept in the service either by eliminating supernumerary or temporary employment, or by transfers, or by filling vacancies already existing.
There is in that conflict a point about which I am still concerned. A number of the grievances come not only from a disagreement but from more or less wilful misunderstandings. Although it has been asserted that postmen would have to eat cold meals along their route, the department has always intended, and that has now been accepted, to provide postmen, according to their choice, with free transportation home, to the postoffice or to another place along their route. Moreover, we have abolished the old rule stipulating that postmen cannot be assigned to an itinerary in the neighbourhood where they live. That measure will therefore enable postmen who wish it to have lunch at home.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

As a result of such misunderstanding it has become apparent that, given the department's
size-there are some 48,000 post office employees spread coast to coast among about 8,000 localities-a comprehensive and accurate system of internal information between employees and management is urgently needed. This problem, I can assure hon. members, is being given serious and urgent study.
In conclusion I would like to say a word of praise to both the officials of the department and to the employees, in particular to the employees who have displayed a sense of pride in public service. I believe this represents a significant step forward in the improvement of labour-management relations from the low point described by Mr. Justice Montpetit in his report of two years ago, and continues the improvement described by Judge Montpetit in his review published last week.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am appreciative of the courtesy shown by the minister in making available to me the text of the remarks he has just made. I cannot in all candour say I am blinded by the brilliance or overcome by the novelty of the statement which has been made. I would look upon it as a hopeful expression of things to come; and a hope that certain other things will not come.
For many weeks I have had the feeling that this so-called single mail processing and the partial five day week were not sufficiently prepared by the minister; otherwise, there would not have been the threats, anxiety and disquiet which have pervaded the Canadian public as a result of statements made by the representatives of some of the workers. We are somewhat disturbed by the fact that the country has been divided into a state where some are on six deliveries and some on five. It will be quite a process to sort out, and provide equitable, fair and efficient postal service to all Canadians.
I note the minister's reference to savings of $13 million, and his reiteration that there will be no reduction in the number of jobs. This is a point on which certain very interested people disagree with him. If he can accomplish a saving of $13 million, keep the mail moving as rapidly as before the five day service was introduced, and avoid any lay-offs, it will be one of the greatest examples of eating one's cake and having it, too, that mankind has seen for very many years.
February 17, 1969

Five Day Postal Delivery
I wish the hon. gentleman well, I hope no unduly disturbing meaning should be read into the expression "differences between two sides have been essentially resolved". The reports I read in the press from parties concerned and from representatives of the workers cause me to give that word "essentially" a good deal of emotional loading, to use a literary expression. It is extremely important that in the face of drastic increases in rates there should be no diminution in service. If as a result of changes which have been only partially planned and arranged, the Canadian people suffer a diminution in service, I am sure the minister will hear about it.
So often has it happened in the past, especially in the instance of the last general strike, that at ministerial and departmental levels there seemed to have been no adequate preparation. Here we have drastic changes which do not appear to have been adequately arranged and discussed before implementation. I can only hope the optimism the minister has expressed will be borne out in the event.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) I noticed the qualification in the minister's statement that the differences have essentially been resolved. The fact, as I am sure the minister knows, is that a large number of the employees affected are still not satisfied, and that the unions are quite convinced that the differences have not been resolved to the satisfaction of the employees of the post office.
Let me say to the minister that, as I have watched his performance on this question over the weeks, it has seemed to me that he carried his decision through in a rather ruthless way, in a way with which an employer concerned with profit making rather than with service to the Canadian people is usually associated. The minister should have learned by now that if he is going to make this kind of change the unions and employees should be consulted before he makes up his mind, instead of making up his mind, announcing the policy and then trying to persuade the unions to accept it.
When the minister says he has heard that there will not be any strikes, slowdowns or work to rule, let me tell him that this is not the result of anything that he has done, but the sole result of the sense of responsibility of the leaders of these unions that are giving essential service to the Canadian people. It is

no thanks to him that there is no interruption of mail delivery at the present time.
It seems to me that when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) this morning assured the representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress, as he has assured this house on previous occasions, that he believes in the principle of the Freedman report that we will not have any changes in work load or work function without consultation and without the unions having some say, this is one government undertaking of great importance where that principle could and should have been introduced by the minister himself.
I share the hopes of the hon. member for Hillsborough that the minister's optimism will be realized, and I merely make two brief comments in conclusion. I understand there has been an increase in the rates for rural postal boxes, and there has been an immense increase in the rates for non-profit publications, to which objection has been taken right across the country and again voiced this morning. While the minister may be able to save some money-though this still remains to be seen-I suggest to him that his performance in all these areas has made a good many of us very leery about the kind of operation he is now heading.


Mr. Andre Foriin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, several reports have been coming to us for some time to the effect that postal employees are considering the possibility of a work stoppage because of misunderstandings with the Post Office Department.
In view of that situation, Mr. Speaker, and having now looked into the minister's statement, I shall make three comments.
First of all, the new regulations have been inadequately explained by the department to the public as well as to the employees themselves.
Then, the new work programs are inadequately prepared. That is why we are facing an urgent situation, partly due to those new regulations.
Moreover, I would like to comment briefly on the lack of harmony in labour-management relations on the levels of information and of dialogue.
According to the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans), such dissatisfaction on the part of postal employees is due to the lack of information given by the department about the new regulations and their implications.
February 17, 1969

I do not want to discuss now the value of the regulations, though I still object to some of them, especially at the rural level, but it is a fact that social communications and objective information between the management of the Post Office Department and the employees have been broken off for too long for unknown reasons.
Mr. Speaker, not only would it be advisable but it would also be important that the department consider setting up an efficient service directed by experts in social relations and information. Such a service could be operated according to the well-known and efficient method of "social animation" for employees as well as for management.
In the labour world, Mr. Speaker, what strikes us every day are the conflicts between management and labour. Several facts indicate how the harmonious relations between both parties have deteriorated.
In this connection the department should set the example and show the way to more harmonious relations by allowing the workers to be more than mere numbers or slaves and the employer to be more humane.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Moreover, working conditions and standards, wages, labour contracts should be the subject of free discussion, under the leadership of a special social animation service, the responsibility of which would be to promote to the maximum the establishment of harmonious relations between management and labour, while giving complete, objective and accurate information to employees, in order that they may be in a position to understand better their own working conditions and to get on well among themselves.
With all the available means of social communication, Mr. Speaker, the present conditions are unacceptable. And the most responsible party in those circumstances is the Post Office Department which is still operated according to out-of-date administrative concepts which tend to keep at a minimum contacts and even discussions, between management and labour.
In my opinion, those administrative concepts are outmoded, and the department would certainly do well if it innovated in the field of information and dialogue with its employees. The minister tried to tell us today that there is really no danger of a strike or work stoppage, but we remain convinced that there is such a risk. At the moment, the Post Office employees multiply their meetings, and rightly so.
Five Day Postal Delivery
Mr. Speaker, we hope the minister will take the necessary steps to prevent another conflict, because considering the evasive statement that he has just made, we still do not know what practical measures he proposes to take.



STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walker-ville) moved: that the second report of the Special Committee on Statutory Instruments, presented to the house on Friday, February 14, 1969 be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (for Ike Secretary of State) moved: that Bill C-171, respecting the National Library, be read a first time and printed.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that bill C-172, to amend the Financial Administration Act be read a first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read a first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


An hon. Member:: At the next sitting of the house.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister) moved: that Bill C-173, an act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto, be now read the first time and be printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1969
Questions

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

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre): 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, how many persons have received payments thereunder?
2.	In each of the above years, what was the total amount paid out under the said Act?
3.	In each of the above years, what was the average amount paid under the said Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows (c) to others?
4.	In each of the last five years, either calendar or financial, for which statistics are available, how many pensions under the Public Service Superannuation Act (a) to retired public servants (b) to widows of public servants or widows of retired public servants, have been discontinued because of the death of the superannuate?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1.	In each year since the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act of 1959 was passed, the number of persons who have received payments thereunder are as follows:
Public
Service Armed Forces R.C.M.P.
1959-60	14,311	2,657	5751960-61	13,885	2,573	5601961-62	12,553	2,496	5401962-63	11,709	2,416	5171963-64	10,852	2,325	4841964-65	10,077	2,234	4591965-66	9,078	2,157	4331966-67	8,162	2,084	4121967-68	7,483	2,003	395
2. In each of the foregoing years, the total amount paid out under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act is as follows:

1959-60 (including payments made 3,112,231 under Vote 667 of Finance Appropriation Act No. 5,
1958)
1960-61	2,956,515
1961-62	2,817,263
1962-63	2,657,706
1963-64	2,504,503
1964-65	2,344,711
1965-66	2,236,212
1966-67	2,038,329
1967-68	1,905,478
3. In each of the foregoing years, the average amount paid under the Public Service Pension Adjustment Act was as follows:
		Retired members	Retired
(a)	Retired	of the	memberspublic	armed	of theto	servants	forces	R.C.M.P.$	$	$1959-60	208.72	298.36	276.391960-61	202.43	298.37	272.881961-62	212.01	300.82	274.411962-63	212.66	300.68	270.681963-64	210.26	302.33	274.391964-65	210.94	269.80	271.821965-66	223.03	291.26	265.561966-67	220.52	290.23	264.711967-68	222.27	291.76	260.79Widows of	members	Widows of(b)	Widows of of the	memberspublic	armed	of theto	servants	forces	R.C.M.P.$	$	$1959-60	108.88	181.32	205.311960-61	105.42	181.44	205.371961-62	111.92	183.36	208.461962-63	113.59	180.48	210.171963-64	115.75	184.93	211.781964-65	118.08	186.90	209.291965-66	126.69	191.12	210.171966-67	125.64	190.61	197.081967-68	128.27	190.54	195.16(c)	Children of	Children ofMembers	Membersto	Children of	of the	of thepublic servants	armed forces R.C.M.P.	$	$	1959-60	9.32	11.22	Nil1960-61	8.79	11.27	Nil1961-62	8.35	11.31	Nil1962-63	9.06	11.33	Nil1963-64	8.00	Nil	Nil1964-65	8.19	Nil	Nil1965-66	9.13	Nil	Nil1966-67	8.93	Nil	Nil1967-68	10.11	Nil	Nil4. In	each of the	last 5 fiscal	years, thenumber	of pensions	paid under	the PublicService Superannuation Act which have been	
discontinued because of the death of the recipient are as follows: (a) to retired public servants: 1963-64, 1025; 1964-65, 1420; 196566, 1489; 1966-67, 1523; 1967-68, 1572. (b) to

February 17, 1969

Questions
widows of public servants or retired public servants: 1963-64, 351; 1964-65, 375; 1965-66, 382; 1966-67, 508; 1967-68, 503.


DISPOSAL OF RED ENSIGNS
Mr. Coaies: 1.	Does the federal government have in its possession or in the possession of any of its Crown Corporations Red Ensigns and, if so, in whose possession are the Red Ensigns at the present time?
2.	Is it the intention of the federal government to sell or in any other manner dispose of these Red Ensigns and, if so, what is the federal government's intention in this regard?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Remaining stocks of Red Ensigns are in the possession of the Department of Public Works.
2.	Stocks will be reduced progressively as the demand for flags from worthy organizations is filled.


SUBSIDY PAYMENTS IN DESIGNATED AREAS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What was the total amount paid to date in subsidies under the Act to provide incentives for the development of industrial employment opportunities in designated areas in Canada?
2.	What were the total amounts approved and paid in the Province of Quebec?
3.	What were the total amounts approved and paid to companies owned by French-Canadians in the Province of Quebec?
4.	Is Domtar considered to be a Quebec company?
5.	Which Quebec companies have been subsidized under this Act and what was the total amount paid in each case?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. $29,932,366.90 to November 30, 1968.
2.	(a) Committed:	$54,010,350.00;	(b)
Paid: $7,906,764.76.
3.	The ownership of companies is not recorded on such a basis. The amount paid to companies which have head offices in the Province of Quebec is $7,128,582.90.
4.	Domtar is a federally incorporated company.
5.	$
Laiterie Dolbeau Ltee	8,245.69
Meunerie St-Frederic Ltee	18,762.28
Cascade Plastics Ltd.	14,560.20
Chaine Co-operative du Saguenay 79,501.79
La Ferme de la Poulette Grise Incorporee
Abattoir de St-Felicien Ltee Societe Co-operative Agricole de St-Jerome Joseph Elie Maltais St-Georges Carpet Mills Ltd. Brookville Industrie Inc.
St-Joseph Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Chaudiere Chipping Center Inc. Les Industries Rancourt Limitee A. Coutourier & Fils Limitee Red Skin Lumber Jos. Houde Limitee La Compagnie Eagle Lumber Limitee
Le Meuble Cascade Inc.
Les Meubles Carrier Inc.
Atelier de Matane Inc. Consolidated Paper Corporation Ltd.
Rousseau Metal Inc.
Atelier Mecanique d'Alma Ltee Ceramique de Beauce Association Co-operative
Beebe Granite Works Limited Provincial Industries Limited Chem-Organic Fertilizers Ltd.

32,568.55
17.700.29
11.151.33
19.062.33 32,000.00 18,503.91
39.772.30 8,000.00
54.666.67 58,887.73
6,283.39
66.673.50
55.295.50 6,297.53 4,328.10
53,414.23
3,000,000.00
1,466.90
6,982.46
45,877.13
9,015.89
63,989.60
57.627.68
Limited	26,545.34
Les Produits de Beton Rimouski Inc.	11,468.91
Tex-El Inc.	13,335.72
Berion Inc.	12,000.00
Les Presses Lithographiques (1965) Inc.	35,800.29
Megantic Manufacturing Company	22,458.49
Laberge & Frere (St-Prime) Inc.	5,718.60
The Valley Shoe Co. Inc.	2,331.34
Precision C. Inc.	900.00
Industries Bouchard Inc.	47,571.43
L'Abattoir Bellechasse-Dorchester Inc.	32,173.58
Irene Thibault Inc.	12,527.20
Cie Bois Heroux Ltee	45,782.16
Quebec United Fishermen	231,151.06
Speciality Dionne	13,500.00
Henri Bonneville & Fils Inc.	2,807.30
St-Georges Metal Inc.	4,764.65
St-George Shoe Co. Ltd.	8,173.57
Marcel Berard Limitee	40,000.00
Elpee Inc.	60,000.00
Avirons du Canada	126.30
Questions

February 17, 1969

James Richardson Company (Limited)
Abattoir Gerard Inc.
Raoul Duchesne
34,060.03
33,503.80
4,923.90
Les Meubles de St-Barthelemy
Ltee	246,155.89
Jos. Poitras & Fils Limitee	11,592.26
Arlen Mills Inc.	10,800.00
Canadian International Paper
Company	208,985.00
Canadian International Paper
Company	1,578,188.00
Waldes (Canada) Ltd.	41,174.24
Bastos du Canada	287,947.88
Montreal Casein Company Ltd. 251,480.98


$7,128,582.90   CANADIAN NATIONAL HOCKEY TEAM
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Will the proposed national hockey team he financed from the National Fitness Fund?
2.	How much money was budgeted for this Fund for 1968-69 operations?
3.	What balance remained in the NFF as of December 15?
4.	How were NFF funds spent in 1968?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Partly.
2.	$4,000,000.
3.	$2,109,120. Commitments already made and to be met by March 31, 1969, will require all the funds available.
4.	From April 1, 1968 to December 15, 1968
expenditures were as follows:
Grants to Associations	$1,061,228
Grants to Provinces	224,652
Post Graduate Scholarships
& Fellowships	132,805
Grants for Research	163,443
Multiple Games	127,396
Information and educational materials and other Federal Services 147,993 Task Force on Sports for
Canadians	33,363


$1,890,880 NOVA SCOTIA-UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ASSISTANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question 1,144-Mr. Coates:
1.	How many part-time assistants have been hired by the Unemployment Insurance Commission in the Province of Nova Scotia to assist claimants in the preparation of their claims for benefits? 
2.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the individuals selected for this part-time employment, how were they selected and what arrangement has been made for payment of the services rendered?
3.	What has been the total number of claims processed by these part-time assistants to date and what has been the total cost to the Unemployment Insurance Commission for this service to date?
Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission that: 1. There are at present 14 part-time assistants (usually designated as UIC agents) in the Province of Nova Scotia to assist claimants in the preparation of their claims for benefits.
2.	Their names, addresses and occupations appear on the list hereafter given.
The appointments are made by the Unemployment Insurance Commission upon the recommendation of the local offices. Selection criteria for agents may be summed up as follows: evidence of good judgment, integrity, availability and ability to express oneself easily. Moreover, candidates must have at their disposal quarters suitable for interviewing claimants and not be claimants.
Upon appointment, agents are entitled to a total amount of $1.50 for each claim and under no circumstances can they accept any further consideration or tip.
3.	During the fiscal year 1967-68, 76,245 claims throughout Canada and 6,144 in Nova Scotia have been processed.
The total cost has been $76,245 for the whole of Canada and $6,144 for the Province of Nova Scotia.
For the fiscal year 1968-69, up to December 31, 1968, the cost for this service has been $42,943 for the whole of Canada and $4,946 for Nova Scotia.
Mrs. Russell Decker, Lockeport, N.S.; Mr. George Henderson, Lunenburg, N.S., owner of an insurance agency; Mrs. Arnold Spears, Sheet Harbour, N.S.; Mrs. John Doran, 66 Stannus Street, P.O. Box 914, Windsor, N.S.; Mr. A. D. Cameron, Antigonish, N.S.; sheriff; Mrs. Margaret Timmons, Canso, N.S.; Mr. Walter MacDonald, Guysboro, N.S., bookkeeper; Mr. James L. Pyle, Mulgrave, N.S.; Mrs. Elsie Sangster, New Harbour, N.S.; Mrs. Winnifred Baillie, Pictou, N.S.; general insurance agency; Mr. J. Harvey Taylor, Jr., Port Bickerton, N.S.; Mr. Charles Sarson, McFar-lane Street, Springhill, N.S., grocery store owner; Mr. Alex Cameron, Amherst, N.S., barber; Mr. Delbert L. Forrest, Digby, N.S.
February 17, 1969


NOVA SCOTIA COAL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What Is the cost per ton of coal production in Nova Scotia?
2.	What subsidy is paid per ton by the federal government for coal produced in Nova Scotia?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The latest available information for all Nova Scotia coal mines is the annual survey of the Dominion Coal Board for 1967. This report indicates that the average total cost per ton for the production and distribution of Nova Scotia coal in 1967 was $13.98.
2.	Nil since April 1, 1968.


C.B.C. EXPENSES DURING MEXICO OLYMPIC GAMES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,201
Mr. Matte:: 1.	What are the exact details of the expenses incurred by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the Olympic Games in Mexico?
2.	What amount was spent by the English network?
3.	What amount was spent by the French network?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:	1. See replies to
Questions 574, 605 and 925, Hansard No. 71, pages 4290-91 and 4300-01 which outline the expenses incurred in connection with CBC coverage of the Olympic Games. It has not been customary to require the Corporation to disclose individual program costs in greater detail than presented in these previous replies.
2.	and 3. CBC coverage of the Olympic Games was a combined network operation from which a special production team was assembled to serve both CBC English and French radio and television networks and International Service. The expenses were the responsibility of this special production unit and not English and French network sports departments.


STANDARD OF AUTOMOBILE SERVICE CONTRACT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is the federal government taking any steps to require automobile manufacturers to provide a service contract for their product requiring a standard acceptable to government regulations?
Questions
2.	Will the government take any steps to ensure that warranty and guarantees provided by the manufacturer are sufficient to cover the total vehicle and not Just certain parts?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: 1. No regulations have been established by the federal government with respect to service contracts for motor vehicles.
2.	It is understood that the major automobile manufacturers offer warranties covering automobiles for 12 months or 12,000 miles whichever comes first. This covers all vehicle defects except the tires which are covered by separate warranties of the tire manufacturers. Supplementary warranties are offered for 5 years or 50,000 miles on the power train subject to specified conditions. The studies of automobile repair and warranty problems now being conducted by the U.S. Senate and the Federal Trade Commission are being followed but until the results of these studies are known no decision concerning appropriate action in Canada will be taken.
SAVINGS BONDS SALES IN QUEBEC Question No. 1,216


René Matte: 1.	What was the total amount of Canada Savings Bonds sold in the Province of Quebec from 1960 to 1968 inclusive and since January 1, 1969?
2.	What was the total amount of the Bonds redeemed in each of these years?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Exclusive of sales made through the Payroll Savings Plan to personnel of the Public Service, armed forces, railways, chartered banks and establishments covered by mail, for which no regional sales breakdown is available, the estimated amount of Canada Savings Bonds sold in the Province of Quebec from 1960 to 1968 inclusive was:
Calendar	Sales
Year	($ millions)
1960	190.5
1961	218.4
1962	335.0
1963	229.5
1964	226.1
1965	207.5
1966	409.0
1967	326.5
1968	690.1
Total	2,832.6
Information for January 1969 is not available.

February 17, 1969
Questions
2.	The total amount of Canada Savings Bonds of all series redeemed through the Montreal Agency of the Bank of Canada in each of the years from 1960 to 1968 was as follows:
Calendar
Year
1961
1963
1965
1967
Total
Redemptions ($ millions)
129.0
127.6
245.9
205.9
157.9
172.7
369.7
256.9
711.1
2,376.7


STATUTORY ORDERS AND REGULATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to revise, in the near future, the Statutory Orders and Regulations (SOR)?
2.	Is there a branch dealing with the SOR?
3.	What steps are taken to ensure that the regulations passed are within the powers delegated by Parliament?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	All Regulations that are published in Part II of the Canada Gazette are reviewed by the Legal Adviser to the Privy Council Office to ensure that they are within the powers delegated by Parliament.


CARDIGAN, P.E.I. POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr, McQuaid: 1.	How many Post Offices have been closed in the federal constituency of Cardigan since January 1, 1966?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	What were the reasons for the closure in each case?
4.	As a result of these closures, how many people, either postmasters or rural carriers, were thrown out of employment?
5.	What further post offices are scheduled to be closed in this constituency in the immediate future?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned. 1. Two.
2.	Bear River, Hopefield.
3.	Limited usefulness.
4.	One postmaster and two rural couriers.
Note: The Bear River Post Office was closed
on the 31st December 1968 to coincide with the retirement of the Postmaster. The Post Office at Hopefield was closed on the 31st January 1969 and this resulted in the release of the Postmaster. The discontinuance of Bear River Rural Route No. 1 and Hopefield Rural Route No. 1 resulted in the cancellation of the contract of the Rural Couriers.
5.	In accordance with the policy to close smaller Revenue Post Offices, authority was granted recently to close the Post Offices at Annandale and St. Mary's Road. Further studies are being conducted with a view to closing additional Post Offices within the closing programme criteria but no decision has been made on any particular case as yet.


&quot;YUKON&quot; AIRCRAFT OTTAWA-BRUSSELS FLIGHT
Mr. Coates: 1.	Were members of the RCAF required to remain at a hotel in Ottawa during the week of January 12 in connection with their duties with Air Transport Command in the flying of a Yukon Aircraft from Ottawa to Brussels?
2.	Did this Yukon Aircraft carry any passengers from Ottawa to Brussels or on the return journey?
3.	What was the purpose of the flight to Brussels?
4.	What was the estimated cost to the federal government for the flight in question?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, on the night of 13/14 January, as there was no suitable accommodation available at CFB Uplands.
2.	Yes.
3.	To airlift the Chief of Defence Staff and a party of military and civilian officials to the NATO meeting in Brussels. On return flight, to airlift the Minister of National Defence and a party of military and civilian officials returning to Ottawa from the NATO meeting. On both trips, those seats not occupied by the official party were made available to military personnel and their dependants authorized for such air transportation.
4.	This Yukon Aircraft was operated within the authorized monthly flying schedule for Air Transport Command. On all such flights, the aircraft operating costs, pay and allowances, temporary duty costs of the crew are budgeted for annually, and the only extra cost for this particular flight was $2,200, which included temporary duty expenses for the crew in Ottawa and Brussels, in flight meals and landing fees at Brussels airport.
February 17, 1969


GREY-SIMCOE, ONT., POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Noble: How many post offices has the government closed and how many more does it propose to close in the constituency of Grey-Simcoe?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned-1. None. Studies are being conducted with a view to closing post offices within the closing program criteria but no decision has been made on any particular case as yet.


C.B.C.-TAPED CHRISTMAS GREETINGS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did Canadian Broadcasting Corporation personnel travel overseas prior to Christmas to tape Christmas greetings from service men and their families for transmission to relatives in Canada?
2.	If so, what are the names of the Canadian Forces bases visited by the CBC, and the number of interviews?
3.	With respect to the Atlantic Provinces, were all the interviews rebroadcast, and, if not, for what reason, and what particular ones were not given?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. No. However, a CBC concert party visited Alert, N.W.T., early in December to entertain Canadian troops. Twelve Christmas messages from servicemen for their families were taped and all were broadcast on the "On Stage" program December 22.
2. and 3. See 1. above.


CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO POST OFFICE CLOSURES
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the Post Office Department from 1965 to 1968 inclusive?
2.	How many post offices were closed by the Post Office Department in each Quebec constituency and in each of the provinces?
3.	Is the same criteria applied for closing post offices across Canada and, if not, in what manner does it differ?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: 1. 1,101.
2. (a) Because of changes in electoral districts, this information is not available by constituencies for the required period; (b) Number of post offices closed in each province in the years 1965 to 1968 inclusive: Newfoundland, 49; Prince Edward Island, 21;
Questions
Nova Scotia, 141; New Brunswick, 96; Quebec, 181; Ontario, 175; Manitoba, 77; Saskatchewan, 147; Alberta, 132; British Columbia, 76; Yukon, 3; Northwest Territories, 3.
3.	Yes.


HARMFUL EFFECTS OF PESTICIDES
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare ever have a study made on the possible harmful effects on human and animal health following the use of (a) pesticides, insecticides and fungicides, etc.? (b) following excessive use of chemical fertilizers for plants, vegetables, pastures, etc.?
2.	If so, what was the result of that study?


John Carr Munro: 1. (a) Yes; (b) No.
2. The Food and Drug Directorate has underway an extensive program of research on pesticides, including insecticides and fungicides. Certain insecticides containing phosphorus have been shown to produce skeletal abnormalities in chicken and duck embryos, but the amounts required to produce this effect are much higher than those found in foods sold in Canada. Other studies showed that small amounts of organochlorine insecticides are present in the body fat of Canadians. The levels of these substances are similar to those found in other countries and are not considered to be hazardous to health. Investigations are underway on the breakdown of insecticides and fungicides in plants used for food. Breakdown products have been detected, but the small amounts present do not pose a health hazard to the public.
The Food and Drug Directorate also carries out extensive monitoring of the Canadian food supply for pesticide residues. The results have shown that normal use of pesticides does not result in the presence of residues in foods in amounts which are considered a hazard to health.


SECRETARY OF STATE TRANSLATIONS BUREAU
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many persons are employed in the Translations Bureau of the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	Of these (a) how many are translators (b) how many are administrative personnel?

February 17, 1969
Questions
3.	How many of these persons were recruited from foreign countries?
4.	If any, from what countries were persons recruited, and how many from each country respectively?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. 515 as at 1st February, 1969.
2.	(a) 348, includes interpreters; (b) seven, one superintendent, one assistant superintendent, five directors.
3.	12.
4.	11 in France; one in Switzerland.


FEDERAL TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY CONTRIBUTIONS
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): Since 1960, has the federal government contributed financially to the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway and, if so (a) what was the financial contribution of the federal government for the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 (b) for work done in the Province of Quebec (c) what is the percentage of this contribution as compared to the total cost of the work?


Arthur Laing: Yes,
(a)	Trans-Canada Highway Total Federal Contributions
Fiscal Year	All Provinces
1960-61	$48.7 million
1961-62	36.5 *
1962-63	29.2 "
1963-64	39.2 "
1964-65	76.1 "
1965-66	83.4 "
1966-67	81.0 "
1967-68	64.7 "
(b)	Trans-Canada Highway Total Federal Contributions
Fiscal Year	to Province of Quebec
1960-61	$ -
1961-62	2.7 million
1962-63	9.6 "
1963-64	8.0 "
1964-65	32.0 "
1965-66	33.5 "
1966-67	41.8 "
1967-68	22.1 "
(c) A considerable portion of the Trans-Canada Highway in the Province of Quebec is of multi-lane construction. Canada shares only in an equivalent two-lane facility and does not share the right-of-way acquisition

costs. Therefore, the total cost to the province is not known to us and percentages cannot be struck.


SUPPORT SHIPS H.M.C.S. &quot;PROTECTOR&quot; AND &quot;PRESERVER&quot;
Mr. Dumont: 1.	How many companies submitted tenders in connection with the construction of the two operation support ships, the HMCS Protector and Preserver?
2.	What was the amount of the tender accepted, what company submitted it and how does it compare to other tenders received?
3.	What was the estimated cost of the two ships included in the original contract given to the successful bidder and did these prices include sales tax?
4.	What are the prices of the contract at the present time?
5.	If the prices have been increased, what factors contributed to their increase and what are the amounts involved?
6.	What is the estimated price to be paid the bidder who was awarded the contract after the ships have been completed?
7.	What were the delivery dates for each ship as stipulated in the contract, is there any change in these dates and, if so, what are the anticipated new delivery dates?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: 1. Two companies.
2.	The contractor selected, Saint John Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. Ltd., tendered a price of $46,451,432.00 plus escalation on material. Davie Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. submitted a price of $51,784,475.00 plus escalation on material.
3.	$47,618,486.00, federal sales tax included, for the two ships.
4.	$50,186,650.00.
5.	Factors contributing to increase: Design Changes $1,718,615.00; Federal Sales Tax $386,130.00; material for interior communication system $331,174.00; labour escalation $132,245.00.
6.	It is not possible to state precisely the final amount to be paid the contractor as design changes could occur between now and final delivery especially during the period of trials. However, it is anticipated that the approved budget of $53 million will be maintained.
7.	June and November, 1969. Dates have been changed to September, 1969, and February, 1970. It is anticipated the new delivery dates will be maintained or improved.
February 17, 1969


NEW BRUNSWICK-QUEBEC CORRIDOR ROAD
Mr. Coales: 1.	Is it the intention of the federal government through the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Transport, or both, to initiate discussion with the Government of the United States into the possible construction of a Corridor Road from the Province of New Brunswick to the Province of Quebec?
2.	Have any discussions been held to date and, if so, on what date did such discussions first take place and between what departments in Canada and the United States?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No, not at the present time.
2. No.


CONTROLS ON AMPHETAMINE-TYPE STIMULANTS
Mr. Comeau: Did Canada refuse to support the efforts of Sweden to impose strict controls, through the United Nations Narcotics Commission, on amphetamine-type stimulants and, if so, for what reason?


John Carr Munro: No. On the contrary, the Swedish Delegation withdrew its resolution on this subject in favour of an alternative resolution spnsored by Canada, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Mexico, Peru, Switzerland, UAR, United Kingdom and the United States of America which was subsequently adopted by the Narcotic Commission. Canada's support of the Swedish efforts is reflected in the resolution that was adopted.


IMPORTS OF BOOTS AND SHOES FROM CZECHOSLOVAKIA
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Did the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada complain to the Department of National Revenue on March 7, 1968, and from time to time in the interval, concerning the importation in 1968 and earlier of leather work boots and shoes from Czechoslovakia and Poland at allegedly unfair prices which might constitute dumping?
2.	If so, what action has been taken to investigate the validity of the complaints and with what results?
3.	Has there been a determination that dumping has taken place and, if so (a) to what extent (b) what further action is thereby contemplated?
4.	If the complaint of dumping has not been substantiated, what are the reasons for rejecting the complaint?
5.	If no decision has yet been reached, when is one anticipated?
Questions


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Yes.
2.	With respect to Czechoslovakia, investigation revealed undervaluation and values were established under section 38 of the Customs Act. This resulted in a decrease in importations. No action was taken against importations from Poland because of the small quantities involved.
3,	4 and 5. In addition to the above another complaint was recently received from the Shoe Manufacturers' Association of Canada in connection with leather boots and shoes for work and sports wear from Romania and Poland alleging injurious dumping. The complaint was accepted on February 4, 1969, and a formal investigation initiated under the new Anti-dumping Act.


REVENUE FROM BUILDING MATERIALS TAX
Mr. Lafulippe: What was the revenue, by year and, by province of the federal 11 per cent tax on building materials?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Sales tax applicable to building materials is not segregated but is included in the total sales tax collected.


SOCIO-ECONOMIC STUDY OF NORTHWESTERN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Corbin: Under the terms of an agreement with the Province of New Brunswick, what amount has the federal government contributed toward the cost of a socio-economic study by the Regional Development Council of northwestern New Brunswick for the years 1966-67-68?


Russell Clayton Honey: 


$28,690.20.   PLACEMENT OF MILITARY ATTACHES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	In what countries does Canada have a Military Attach^?
2.	What is the rank of the senior Military Attach^ in each country?
3.	How many military personnel and/or civilian personnel are attached to the office of each Military
Attache?
4.	What is the basic role and/or function of the Military Attach^ in each country of attachment?

February 17, 1969
Questions


David Walter Groos: 1. Belgium, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Oslo is crossaccredited to Denmark), Finland (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Moscow is crossaccredited to Finland), France, Germany, Ghana, (also Commander Canadian Armed Forces Training Team-Ghana), Greece (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Belgrade is cross-accredited to Greece), India, Iraq (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Ankara is cross-accredited to Iraq), Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Cairo is cross-accredited to Jordan), Lebanon (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Cairo is cross-accredited to Lebanon), Luxembourg (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Brussels is cross-accredited to Luxembourg), Nepal (Canadian Forces Attache resident in New Delhi is cross-accredited to Nepal), Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Poland, Sweden, Sudan (Canadian Forces Attache resident in Cairo is cross-accredited to Sudan), Turkey, U.A.R. U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia.
2. The rank of the senior Canadian Forces Attache in each country is colonel, except in Belgium and Cyprus, where it is lieutenant colonel.
3.
Post	Total military Total civilian	
Belgium	1 clerk	1Cyprus	1 clerk	1Czechoslovakia	1 clerk	2France	1 Assistant Canadian	Forces Attache	2 clerks	2Germany	1 clerk	3Ghana	1 clerk	1India	1 clerk	1Israel	1 clerk	2Italy	1 clerk	2Japan	1 clerk	2Netherlands	1 clerk	2Norway	1 clerk	2Pakistan	1 clerk	1Poland	1 clerk	2Sweden	1 clerk	2Turkey	1 clerk	2U.A.R.	1 clerk	1U.S.S.R.	2 L/Col Assistant	Canadian Forces Attaches	3 clerks	4Yugoslavia	1 clerk	2

4.	The basic role of the Canadian Forces Attache is to represent the Canadian Armed Forces, and to advise the head of post as appropriate on naval, military and air force matters in his country(ies) of accreditation.


MR. RALPH DENT-NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. McQuaid: Was Mr. Ralph Dent appointed to the National Parole Board and, if so (a) what is the duration of his appointment (b) what salary will he receive and from what date will it commence (c) what are the qualifications for this position?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: He was appointed to the National Parole Board by P.C. 1968/2343 dated 20 December, 1968, (a) the duration of his appointment is 10 years; (b) $22,000 per annum from date of appointment; (c) Dr. Dent's qualifications for this position are: MA from University of Toronto (Psychology); PhD from Michigan State University in communications; two years experience as a clinical psychologist for Sunny brook Hospital and the John Howard Society; Professor of Psychology at Acadia University and Dean of Men, six years; Professor of Psychology in adult education Ontario Agricultural College, six years. Directed graduate program in communications at La Molina University, Peru, two years. Author of several articles on communications and language learning courses. Sound judgment, good knowledge of people and related motivating forces.


ST. BENJAMIN, QUE.-POST OFFICE
Mr. Rodrigue: Does the government intend to construct a post office in St-Benjamin, constituency of Beauce and, if so (a) have the calls for tender been issued (b) when will the work begin?


Arthur Laing: No; this project was included in the winter work programme which has been cancelled. (a) and (b) Not applicable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1. How many workers in Canada earn less than $3,000 per year?
February 17, 1969

2.	How many workers In Canada earn between $3,000 and $4,000?
3.	What measures has the government taken, or does it intend to take, to deal with the problem of poverty in Canada?
4.	Does the government intend to set up a commission to make an exhaustive study of the problem of poverty in Canada, and to suggest to the House ways of correcting the present situation and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE-LANGUAGE SPOKEN BY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Fortin: Among the employees earning $17,000 per year or more, in the case of each of the following: Department of Trade and Commerce, Comptroller of the Treasury, Department of Finance, Treasury Board, Department of Fisheries National Research Council, Board of Transport Commissioners, Polymer Corporation Limited, Air Canada, Canadian National Railways, how many are (a) Canadians whose mother tongue is French (b) Canadians whose mother tongue is English (c) others (d) bilingual?
Return tabled.


EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS
Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo): Does the Department of Manpower and Immigration or any other federal department have any special plans to employ or stimulate employment for students, particularly university students, in the coming year and, if so (a) what is the nature of the program(s) (b) what is the estimated number of students who would be assisted by the program (s) ?
Return tabled.


WAR AND PEACE-GRANTS TO UNIVERSITIES FOR STUDIES
Mr. Rose: 1.	What is the amount of federal money granted to universities for strategic studies each year?
2.	How much money is being granted for studying causes and methods of preventing war?
3.	Are the federal government computers suitable for processing peace research data?
4.	If so, would the government consider making available from time to time its computer facilities to responsible persons engaged in peace research?
Return tabled.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but before doing so, I would say I am pleased to see him back after what must have been a very pleasant weekend, and the realization that the report attributed to one of his colleagues that somebody disliked him proved to be quite unfounded.
I would ask the Prime Minister whether he has reached any decision regarding the establishment of a parliamentary committee respecting the question of constitutional reform.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On the congratulations of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank him very much. I told the people in Quebec I believe in federal-provincial co-operation. They were down here at the first part of the week, and I was in Quebec for the balance which is a good way of co-operating. The carnival will go on; it has not finished.


An hon. Member:: Which one, here or down there?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, that is the one I am referring to.
I have not reached a decision about setting up any parliamentary committee. I must say that my first reaction on hearing the speeches on Friday and reading Hansard for that day was not one that led me to believe that we would have a great deal to gain from listening to the views of members of the other parties as to the constitution, but I am willing to re-assess this.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it might not be useful for the government house leader to confer with the other house leaders with a view to reaching some more precise formulation for this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will say that I undertake to discuss the matter with the government house leader, and in fact I intend to discuss it in cabinet this week. I repeat that I am not averse to the idea. I do know that the committees of the house are extremely busy,
February 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry and I am not therefore sure if it would be conducive to much more work in the other committees if we were to set up a committee on the constitution. As I have said, at this stage of the game there seems to be a great deal of indecision in the constitutional theories of some of the members of the house.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: As a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In coming to a decision on this would not the Prime Minister bear in mind that the issues need to be made simple and precise, free from the power conflicts and struggles between the federal and the provincial governments, that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have failed dismally to do this, and that a parliamentary committee could not make a worse mess than the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon.
member that the question he is asking is quite out of order.



OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I tried to give him notice of it a little while ago but was unable to reach him. Is he aware of the delays which have taken place in approving some adult educational programs for Chimo Indians in Schefferville, Quebec, resulting in a loss of pay for the trainees and, if so, what action is the minister taking to remedy the situation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with this particular case. It is one where the department, under the regulations, is not able to approve training allowances because the courses had commenced before the proper authorization had been received, as required under the regulations.


David Lewis: Would the minister undertake to look into the situation and to see whether the regulations could be made to apply, as I understand they could, so that the trainees would be paid for a full period of 16 weeks instead of a shorter period?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look at the case again, but from what study I have made of it I have discovered that the regulations have been applied in the proper way.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a further supplementary question may I ask the minister whether it is the policy of his department that any educational up-grading should not go beyond the eighth grade, in the case I am now referring to affecting the Chimo Indians in Schefferville? I am informed that this has been the case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to investigate that particular point.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: As a supplementary question, do I understand the minister's answer to be that the trainees are not receiving pay because the school course was started without proper authorization?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the answer.


Donald MacInnis: Then I would ask the minister whether the instructors are a volunteer staff, or are receiving their pay?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the staff as such is not in the employ of the Department of Manpower and Immigration. In the normal case the department purchases these courses from the provincial departments of education, and in some cases from private organizations. In this case the courses had commenced before the necessary authorization had been given by the provincial department of education. As to the status of the teachers involved, it is not in issue at this point. It is a question of training allowances for those persons who had been in the courses before they were authorized.


David Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would not wish to mislead the house. He said the course had been started before the department of education had approved of it. Would he be good enough to look into that, because my information is that the department of education approved of it last November, and that any of the difficulties that arose-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this is not a point of order, but rather that it is a point of debate between hon. members.


David Lewis: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I did rise on a point of order to make sure the minister was not saying something in answer to a question which I am quite certain was wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: It is still not a point of order.
February 17. 1969	COMMONS



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In connection with the questions asked last week, is the hon. gentleman now in a position to report progress in the discussions between our diplomats in Sweden and their counterparts of the People's Republic of China?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no further developments to report at the present time.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, will the minister tell the house whether he has instructed Canada's representatives to suggest, during their discussions with the representatives of Peking, payment of the 13 million 1949 dollars spent by the Canadian government for the seven ships seized by the Peking regime at the time of its take-over in that country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think all these negotiations will be facilitated if we have an exchange of diplomats, which is what we are trying to bring about.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of External Affairs.
Would he tell us where the negotiations with Communist China now stand and advise us of the substance of the talks and of the decisions taken up to now with regard to that country.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman may not have been in the house when I answered a similar question a few moments ago. I have nothing further to report to the house.


POSSIBILITY OF VISIT TO CANADA OF PRESIDENT NIXON
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasf-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As every postwar United States president has first conferred with the Prime Minister of Canada before conferring with other heads of states, and as President Nixon has announced
DEBATES	5583
Inquiries of the Ministry meetings with the heads of state of five European countries, and Australia, and there has been no forthcoming announcement of any meeting with Canada, has-


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


George Harris Hees: I am just giving a little background, Mr. Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs been in touch with his opposite number in the State Department to find out the reason for this apparent downgrading of Canada's importance in the eyes of the American government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman and all members of the house that we have been in touch with the United States administration about a meeting between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada. I am sure this will be arranged at a time that does justice both to our country and to the Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question following that non-answer. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs investigated with the State Department the story coming out of Washington during the weekend that the apparent coolness of the United States government toward Canada is due to the lukewarm attitude of this government in respect of our participation in NATO and NORAD?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no substance in that. The President of the United States is most anxious to meet our esteemed and respected Prime Minister. If I may say so, I think there has never been a time when there has been greater respect in the United States for this country.


George Harris Hees: Is the President simply putting off the visit as long as possible?


HARBOURING OF DESERTERS IN CONTRAVENTION OF ALLIANCE AGREEMENTS
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that perhaps we should go on to another question. We would seem to be getting away from the type of question that should be asked and answered at this time. Do I
February 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry understand that the hon. member has a supplementary?


John (Jack) McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps my question should be addressed to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence maybe the Secretary of State for External Affairs could answer it. Are there any provisions in Canada's collective alliance agreements which prohibit Canada's harbouring deserters from nations associated with Canada in such alliances?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked by the hon. member cannot be in order. He is asking for information interpreting agreements or treaties between countries. It seems to me this is not the type of question which should be answered now.


John (Jack) McIntosh: With all deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I just asked whether there are any provisions in the agreements. I do not have copies of the agreements. Perhaps the Postmaster General could tell us, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as you have said this is a question which requires interpretation of a statute. I will take the question as notice, but perhaps it would be better if the hon. gentleman were to place it on the order paper.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Have any discussions been held on this question between the authorities of the United States and Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will have to take notice of that.


VIOLENT DISTURBANCES
[Stage Direction]
QUEBEC-EXPRESSION OF SUPPORT BY UNION Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):	Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I shall put my question to the Prime Minister.
Since a labor leader stated in Quebec yesterday that he and his group backed strongly those perpetrating acts of violence in Quebec, or who intended to indulge in violence, is it the intention of the government to carry out an inquiry in this connection?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Justice is in Vancouver for the purpose of carrying on the discussions on the Constitution undertaken last week with the provincial Ministers 

of Justice, my reply to the hon. member is that this matter, as many others, comes under the administration of justice and does not, therefore, fall under our jurisdiction, unless we are asked by the province to intervene. I know that the hon. member is a strong supporter of provincial autonomy and surely he does not want us to act in any way that would run counter to such autonomy.


L.S.D.-INVESTIGATION BY R.C.M.P. INTO ILLEGAL IMPORTATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. Could he tell the house whether the R.C.M.P. has been able to clarify the situation with regard to the smashing of an international drug ring wherein great quantities of l.s.d. were coming into Canada, and is there anything further he can tell us beyond what he did not tell the hon. member for Palliser some ten days ago?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give the hon. member information at the moment, but I will look at the question to see if something can be given at a later stage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister look into the question and advise whether the drug was being manufactured in Canada in Canadian government laboratories, and in particular was any employee of the government involved in its manufacture on behalf of the ring?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to look into that matter.


LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE REPAYMENT OF OVERCHARGES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, February 7 I addressed a question to the Prime Minister. I have been led to believe that by now an answer might be forthcoming. My question related to reports that a number of drug firms in the United States are making payments of $120 million to cover overcharges that had resulted in excess profits. I asked whether the government of Canada is studying this matter and whether legislation might be brought in
February 17, 1969

to make it possible for Canada to require similar action.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the action to which the hon. member refers is action being taken in the United States pursuant to section 4 of the United States Clayton Act. We have no counterpart of such a law in our own Combines Investigation Act and no such action would be possible in Canada. As the hon. member knows, the question of combines, monopolies and competition policy generally is before the Economic Council of Canada for advice. When we receive a report from the council we will study it and bring in a revised combines act to the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: Then you will have a white paper going back again to the Economic Council.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has
the minister been in touch with the officials in the United States who are dealing with this matter, to see whether they have any information to help us ascertain whether the same overcharging is taking place in Canada.


Stanley Ronald Basford: As my predecessor explained in January 1968, the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act had been in touch at that time with the officials of the anti-trust section of the United States department of justice, who advised him at that time there was no evidence in the United States which indicated there had been offences committed in Canada under our law.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport, or in his absence the acting minister. In light of the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission has not sent a representative to attend the hearings of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, which committee is beginning a tour of Atlantic Canada in Fredericton today, and in light of the fact that the chairman has requested that a representative be sent, can the minister assure the house that the Canadian Transport Commission will be represented at the remaining hearings to be held in the mari times?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]




André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the French-speaking countries conference in Niamey. There have been reports of a confrontation between members of the federal and provincial delegations and I would like to ask the minister whether a previous understanding could have prevented that situation and whether any thought was effectively given to that?


Mitchell William Sharp: Before the delegation went to Niamey there were conversations between the governments of Quebec and of Canada and also with other provinces, and an agreement was reached concerning the composition of the Canadian delegation. I believe these arrangements are in the best interests of all concerned. I hope they will be carried through in an amicable fashion and be worthy of our country.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I thank the minister for his answer. Now could he tell us whether he considers the federal delegation as the head delegation, or-


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think the question is acceptable as put. The hon. member is asking the minister for an opinion and in this sense I do not think his question is in order.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport or in his absence the minister representing him today. It is in relation to rail movement to the west coast of lumber, pulp and products other than wheat. Can the minister advise the house what action is being taken to expedite the movement of several hundred C.N.R. box cars which reportedly are sidetracked on the Jasper-Prince Rupert line, thereby causing a delay which is
February 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry resulting in serious dislocation and even possible layoffs in several coastal industries.
Righl Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport is due to be in the house tomorrow.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Kumber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. Could the minister advise when he expects to sign an agreement with the province of Newfoundland on a proposed $305 million FRED program as announced three times in the past six months by the premier of Newfoundland.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: I did not catch the figure, but I think this will be signed very shortly.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Immigration. In view of the fact that there appears to be overlapping jurisdiction with regard to this particular problem, could the minister advise whether it is the intention of the government to hold an early conference which would include the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Justice and the attorneys general of the respective provinces in order to decide what will be the future immigration policy regarding the admission to Canada of known professional agitators.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The policy of the government in this regard is under continuous review. It has been stated a number of times in the house. At the present time it is not proposed to alter the policy.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Would the Minister of Manpower and Immigration tell us if the City of Montreal has lodged a complaint concerning the presence in our Quebec universities of Mr. Karl Dutrich-Wolff, president of the socialist

students of West Germany, who describes himself as a professional agitator? According to Section 19A of the Immigration Act, I think the minister would be justified in investigating the presence-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think the hon. member has made representations to the minister instead of putting a question to him.


Marcel Prud'homme: With Your Honour's permission, may I rephrase my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration of a few moments ago? Has the minister received any representation respecting the presence in Montreal of Karl Dutrich-Wolff, president of the socialist students of West Germany?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that even as rephrased the question is not in order. The hon. member simply asked whether representations had been received. I wonder whether he would not like to return at the time of adjournment to discuss the matter.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Would the minister tell the house how he distinguishes in principle between a draft dodger and a deserter?


Mr. Speaker:: The distinguished member's question is out of order.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the wide publicity given to the weekend statement of a respected Toronto economist, that the establishment has no interest in the poor and is not going to do anything for them, will the minister make an early statement concerning what programs are in prospect to transform the poor from welfare recipients into participating citizens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression the question as asked is not in order. The hon. member is suggesting what the minister's statement should be if he were to make a statement. I would think for this reason the question should not be answered.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
February 17, 1969


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
alleged discrimination against rural

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question lor the Postmaster General. Considering the unusually large volume of protests alleging discrimination against rural box holders and the recently announced increased charges, would the minister give serious consideration to eliminating this extra cost to the box holders concerned?


Eric William Kierans: We are evaluating the cost of the lock box and attempting to gain a revenue commensurate with it. Rural residents have the option of receiving their mail free, as does everybody else by calling for it at a general delivery wicket. Those who choose a lock box service are asking for an additional service and are expected to pay for it.


REQUEST FOR REDUCTION IN DELIVERY TIMES
Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that most mail deliveries within Toronto and Montreal in the last few weeks have been taking two days, and the further fact that the Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges rely on the mail and require settlement of accounts within three days, and are finding it difficult because of the mail delays to comply with the rules of their exchanges, can the minister assure the house that it is the intention in his modernization of the post office to reduce delivery times to one day?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the bulk of the mail is delivered in one day between Montreal and Toronto, but there are occasions when it is not. I spent all day Friday in Toronto precisely to investigate conditions there. I may say, with respect to the latter point made by the hon. member, that the sorting out of accounts between Montreal and Toronto stockbrokers does not depend primarily on the mail. However I recognize the problem he raised. We are doing everything we can to improve service.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Postmaster General could explain, to some of us whose education is rather limited, what the difference is between the word "sortation" and the word "sorting".
Inquiries of the Ministry


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


MINISTERS REFUSAL TO MEET FEMALE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Can he tell us why he has refused to grant an interview to 500 casual female employees from his department who wanted to discuss their job difficulties?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request.


UNITED NATIONS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government, as a member of the United Nations, work toward the formation of the 19 member committee which Dr. Azikiwe suggested would be a useful instrument for the ending of the Nigeria-Biafra war?


Mitchell William Sharp: We do not yet have the details of Dr. Azikiwe's proposals, but from the initial report that has appeared in the papers and on other media they appear to be worthy of close scrutiny. Undoubtedly both the federal Nigerian government and the Ojukwu regime will be considering his suggestions in the light of their respective positions, and of the particular respect in which Dr. Azikiwe has been held in the past. I know I have been personally very interested, but as I said on at least one previous occasion it is not mediators that we lack, it is agreement on certain fundamental questions on which the two regimes have not yet been able to agree.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if he can give the house an indication of when the report of the commission on security will be tabled, either expurgated or otherwise. I ask this
February 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry question, since it has been asked a number of times for some six months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe the Leader of the Opposition is exaggerating when he says the question has been asked for some six months, but I do recognize that we will have to take a position on this matter before the six months are up. I will report to the house in due course.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Surely the government has taken a position. The question now is: How is the expurgated version coming along? Surely we are entitled to have this.


REQUEST FOR EARLY REPORT BY TASK FORCE
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he in a position to tell the house when the task force on sports is expected to report, whether this report will be made public, and whether the government intends to send the report when received to a committee of the house.


John Carr Munro: I expect the report to come to the government some time next month, that is the month of March, when it will be for the government to decide whether it will be made public.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can he tell the house what action his department has taken to eliminate the many injustices now being caused to people who would receive unemployment insurance benefits, brought about by the crackdown to eliminate fraud and enforce the regulations?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The only people in Canada who have anything to fear from the crackdown are those who intend to defraud the government and the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I have received quite a number of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot say anything; he can only ask.


John Howard Lundrigan: I would like to ask the minister if he could tell the house whether the people who are making representations to a number of hon. members, including myself, are in actual fact dishonest, and whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.


REQUEST THAT BILLS BE PRINTED IN GREATER NUMBERS
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. In order that interested members of the public can participate more fully in our democratic processes on an informed basis, can the minister give the house some assurance as to the printing in the future of larger numbers of important public bills, such as the omnibus bill amending the Criminal Code, the bills amending the Estate Tax Act, and the official languages bill, so that a wider distribution of these bills can be made to members of the public who are interested.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a little difficult to decide in each case which bill will be of wide interest and will require a larger distribution, but I am prepared to speak to the responsible officials in the house on this matter.


IMMIGRATION
John Edward Broadbent: My question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of his statement made to the house last Thursday, and of the recent problems of U.S. students at the border, would he inform the house when his department first made the distinction between deserters and draft dodgers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as put cannot be asked at this time.


CANADIAN YOUTH PARLIAMENT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My
question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Now that the Ontario government has revealed its support for a Canadian youth
February 17, 1969

parliament, will the government of Canada give leadership in establishing this project as a means of providing a positive outlet for youth protests and aspirations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked would be an excellent resolution to be placed on the order paper.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary resolution?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: To put it in a more direct and positive form, would the right hon. gentleman authorize the reconvening of the ad hoc committee on this subject which has been in recess for some two years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to reconsider the decision we made in the negative, and which I announced when I answered this question earlier in this session.


CANADA LABOUR (SAFETY) CODE REGULATIONS APPLICABLE THROUGHOUT CANADA
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the passing of regulations made under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code respecting safety in the Cape Breton Development Corporation coal mines, may I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce a series of regulations industry by industry or whether there are to be general regulations under the Canada Labour (Safety) Code applicable across Canada?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the department is to introduce regulations in whatever manner will make the code applicable at the earliest possible moment. In the case of the mines, we concentrated on the complicated regulations needed to make the code operative in that particular area. As the hon. member has indicated, they are now in full operation in that important industry. We are now proceeding from industry to industry, preparing regulations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I ask whether regulations affecting any other industry have yet been passed?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In due course, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry WOMEN


INFORMATION RESPECTING PRESENTATION OF REPORT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. While trying to ascertain who might answer this question I was directed to the Secretary of State, but apparently I am supposed to ask the Prime Minister, not particularly because the question deals with women as such but because reports of royal commissions go to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman tell us when the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women will be available?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am always interested in that type of question, Mr. Speaker, so I have already made inquiries. I understand there is quite a lot of work remaining to be done, so perhaps we should not expect this report until much later in the year.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Since there has been some suggestion that this report will be swept under the rug, can the Prime Minister give the house his assurance that it will be treated in the same way as all reports are treated when they come before the right hon. gentleman?


George Harris Hees: I presume that means it will be swept under the rug.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I did not follow the exchange between the Prime Minister and my hon. friend, but I believe the Prime Minister wanted to answer my question and I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you would allow him to give us his views.


Mr. Speaker:: It was my understanding that the question had been answered.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wanted to give an answer to the hon. member in the affirmative, but I bowed to the knowledge of a member of a former Conservative government.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to whoever
February 17, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry is running the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What happened to the proposition respecting self-government in the Northwest Territories? Is any announcement to be made about it?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Frank Howard: It is obvious nobody is running the department today.


IMMIGRATION
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, on February 111 asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question concerning the directions given to immigration officers at the border with respect to United States draft dodgers, and the parliamentary secretary took my question as notice. Is the minister prepared to answer today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as I recollect it, the question asked by the hon. member had to do with the impersonation by a number of students at the border. These students appeared at the border with copies of a passport and documents pertaining to one particular person, and posed as military deserters. In accordance with the discretion which may be exercised by immigration officers in these cases, the entry of these persons was refused. It was a hoax, of course. It was not a very meaningful test of regulations, especially as those persons were very eager, at least early in the interview, to volunteer that they were just recently in the American forces.


William Arnold Peters: The circumstances are, of course, as the minister has outlined them. But my question was: Would there be an investigation into the allegation that the officials apparently had a prearranged method set up to dispose of cases of this kind? There was also the fact that the Canadian officers got in touch directly with the United States officials, something which appears to be contrary to the provisions of the Immigration Act.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I asked for a report, and I examined it. Then I concluded that the officers had behaved properly and in accordance with the regulations. The action they took in advising their United States counterparts is one which I understand is routine at the border.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants be read the third time and passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



AGRICULTURE


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-155, to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few observations on the third reading of this measure because it represents somewhat of a departure from the type of agricultural bills we have had before us recently. It seems to me it is a forerunner of other bills of this sort which may be coming before the house. I believe there is an intent on the part of the government to deal with changing conditions we are likely to meet in both agriculture and the chemical industry in the years ahead.
In the main, Mr. Speaker, I believe the intent of the bill is good. The government appears to recognize that instances are likely to arise, perhaps with more frequency in the future than in the past, when claims for compensation will be made, and that a basis is necessary for determining the method by which compensation should be paid. While I think the intent of the bill is good, I am a little disappointed that some of the amendments we moved when we were dealing with the substance of the bill clause by clause in the committee stage were not accepted. We believe that those amendments were sound and would have improved the bill, but under the circumstances we must bow to the will of the committee.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
In the result, I feel that the regulations that will be prescribed under the bill and also the clauses of the bill are going to make the
February 17, 1969

legislation too cumbersome to implement. Some clauses are going to work to the detriment of both the agricultural and the chemical industries. However, we are fortunate that the bill is a forerunner of future bills, and that after a trial period the weaknesses will be apparent to the government of the day and it will be brought back for amendment.
The provisions of the bill relate to agricultural products that may become contaminated through no fault of the producer or, indeed, through no fault of the chemical company, which may be located some miles away. An example of such contamination is that alleged to have occurred in the Dunnville area. As we become more skilled in detecting contamination, perhaps attempts will be made to curtail the sale of products grown in areas where it is felt there may be contamination.
One major complaint about the substance of this bill is that although the government department concerned is protected to the fullest extent under the terms of the bill, the same is not true of chemical companies and primary producers. Under the terms of the bill government inspectors will be permitted to confiscate contaminated produce of a farm or farms, in return paying what the government feels to be adequate compensation. However, if a contrary opinion as to the assessed value of such products is voiced by the injured party, an appeal can be made to an assessor appointed by the government. As has been pointed out, it is true that the assessor may be a member of the Supreme Court or a superior court. It is also true that the proceedings are not to be considered court proceedings. Once an assessor has made a ruling in a given case, under the clauses of the bill there is no recourse to any other court by way of appeal or review.
I am very much concerned about this. As we are all aware, many decisions made by judges are appealed. Consequently, this is one respect in which I feel the bill is weak. Once a decision has been made by a government appointed assessor and that decision is upheld, the bill specifically provides there is no appeal or review of such decision, whether the party concerned is a farmer, a co-operative or a chemical company. I contend that this is contrary to the rights of individuals and corporations in Canada, and on this score I am uneasy about the bill.
Another point that gives me very grave concern is the kind of terminology found in such bills as this one and the series of similar
Pesticide Residue Contamination bills coming before us. Although the terminology may have been handed down through the years, we are now legislating for the future, especially in regard to matters where the advancement of science plays such a tremendous part in our progress. Therefore I do not think we should be subjected to such terminology as "subject to such regulations as may from time to time be prescribed by the Governor in Council", or "subject to such conditions as may from time to time be prescribed". Phrases of this kind are found in bills of this type. As legislators we are being asked to pass a piece of legislation and to make it the law of the land when at the same time we are not sure what regulations will be prescribed.
This is why I am uneasy about this bill. Although some bills that come before us are merely amending bills, as a result of our investigation and study of such bills in committee we have found that in many instances guidelines that were set out in former bills have been removed. More and more the scope and intent of such bills are being left entirely to the interpretation of those who draft the regulations, who in turn adopt such methods as they deem appropriate. I feel that we as legislators are often in the dark as to the true intent of bills that are put before us.
Therefore I take this opportunity, on behalf of the great industries of agriculture and chemistry which have become so closely allied, to protest to the house about two facets of this bill that are going to play an increasingly important part as time goes on. First, it seems to me there is absolutely no room in this bill for appealing or reviewing a decision that has been made by the government, which is only one party to an action. Second, it seems to me, in the main, that in passing legislation of this type we as legislators are signing what is commonly known as a blank cheque. In other words, we are leaving entirely to the department the responsibility of drafting such regulations and providing such conditions as may from time to time seem expedient. Perhaps it is necessary to pass bills in this fashion, but I have grave doubts as to the consequences of this practice. Anyone who has been engaged in these two industries knows how indefinite such regulations can be and how much is left to interpretation.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
In the committee stage the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) assured us that even
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination under the terms of the bill it would be possible to appeal directly to the minister. But, Mr. Speaker, we have had a great deal of experience in this regard and we know how ineffective such an appeal can be when directed to a minister. We know how much time can elapse before such an appeal reaches a minister's desk. We know there is also a further delay between the time the appeal reaches his desk and the time he is in a position to make a decision. So, although the intentions of the bill may be good, and I feel they are, and although we on this side are prepared to allow the bill to pass, we still have grave reservations about how it will apply to the industries we are concerned about.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, before this bill is passed, I would like to add a few words to complete the comments I made at the sitting of the committee.
First, I must say that we certainly are in favour of the bill, although it is not perfect for it is difficult to demand absolute perfection.
Mr. Speaker, we are afraid that we are a little confused insofar as compensations are concerned. As a matter of fact, the minister has implied that, as provided for in the law, there is nothing definite in the bill. Under the former bills, which provided for the payment of a fixed amount for the loss of each animal, if the flesh was still fit for consumption, or if the animal no longer had any commercial value, it was still possible to get some compensation. But in the present case, nothing is fixed. It will all depend upon the regulations which the minister or his officials will draw up in favour of the farmers.
Two groups are concerned in the present case: the manufacturers and the farmers who use those pesticides.
Mr. Speaker, we have been told what amounts the minister intends to allow as compensation for the losses suffered by farmers. They represent an increase which in my view should be more liberal. I am glad that a compensation of $200 for a pure-bred milch-cow and $129 for a cross-bred cow.
However, there is a point which concerns me constantly and on which I drew the minister's attention in committee. It is the difference between cross-bred milch-cows and pure-bred cows.
In my district, we have cross-bred dairy herds-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, while I do not wish to interfere with the hon. member's right to carry on the kind of discussion he has carried on with respect to compensation paid for loss of animals, I think he will agree with me that his remarks apply specifically to Bill C-156 and not to C-155.


Mr. Speaker:: These last minutes, I had some doubt as to the relevance of the remarks of the hon. member for Roberval, and I was trying to find in the bill the clauses on compensation for loss of animals.
I believe that the point raised by the Minister of Agriculture is well taken and that the present remarks of the hon. member for Roberval rather relate to Bill C-157 entitled "An act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals".
In my opinion, Bill C-155 now before the house deals more specifically with agricultural products contaminated by pesticides and I do not think, therefore, that the hon. member's comments really referred to the bill under consideration.


Mr. Gauthier:: Thank you for those
remarks, Mr. Speaker. Even if this bill is related to agricultural products damaged by pesticides, I thought that herds could also be affected and that the bill concerned cattle also. So, I will keep my remarks until we debate the bill on animal contagious diseases.
As for Bill C-155 in respect of crops and farmers' property, our only complaint is that the department will be the only decisionmaking agency on the amount of compensation. That is why I brought the matter to the attention of the committee and I bring it again to the minister's attention. In fact, I realize that since the beginning of this session every time such a subject is brought forward it is referred to the department which will later assess the amount of indemnity.
It is hoped that the regulations that the Minister of Agriculture-who is conversant with the subject-as well as his officers intend to present to us will benefit the farmers. Since an act must be promulgated in respect of the future what will happen with regard to further changes? The minister is not infallible, nor is he eternal. Should a less qualified Minister of Agriculture replace him and should the present officers who are very competent and trustworthy be replaced by
February 17, 1969

other people, then we should have to pass an act establishing a standard basic price in order to get away from temporary regulations that may be modified overnight. At this time, that is what I fear most as to the bills on agriculture that we have been discussing. In my opinion, that procedure is being applied to every bill, and that is why I am worried.
When we talk with farmers they ask us: What will be the amounts of compensation in the future? As we are not aware of what they will be, as we are left completely in the dark, we can only answer: We have to wait, it is the minister who makes regulations. Well, if the minister wants to take that chance, he is the one who will have to account for his actions to the people. I think he is old enough to take his own responsibility and he will have to do it alone if he does not want to share it with the committee and the house. Then, we will say to the people: the law has been made thus. The majority has won and we have given the minister and his officials all the latitude needed to determine what compensation you may or may not receive according to what happens in agriculture.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: I would like to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I had the opportunity of attending the committee while it was discussed. I want to join in the view expressed not only by many members present but also by the expert witnesses who appeared before the committee. I have enjoyed the speeches by two members of the opposition this afternoon. I realize that one who has had long experience in the field of opposition naturally has to say something against a bill regardless of whether it is good or bad.
This bill is something new as far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned. I would think that members who wish to be somewhat critical should nevertheless congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for bringing it in. This is something that has never happened before in Canada. It was not possible for the government to pay to a farmer any sum of money he might be justified in receiving. If a pesticide firm or a farmer's neighbour made an error in the spreading of pesticide, the farmer affected could sue the pesticide firm or his neighbour. If the damage arose through no fault of the farmer, his neighbour or the pesticide firm, the farmer could not be compensated for his loss.
Pesticide Residue Contamination
In this bill the government provides compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, as well as for appeals from compensation awards. The Minister of Agriculture and the government deserve credit for this. A great deal more could be done but this is a step in the right direction. The Canadian farmer with substantial losses will now have the opportunity to receive compensation from the government. The minister should be congratulated rather than criticized.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth), although very mild in his criticism, was critical that the regulations had not been drawn up and the amount of compensation had not been decided. I point out that no regulations are written before a bill is passed by parliament. After the bill is passed the regulations will be drawn up by the Minister of Agriculture. The hon. member also suggested there was no provision for a review which would be fair to the farmer concerned. There are 264 members of this house including the Speaker, all of whom represent constituencies. If one of our constituents feels he is not getting a fair deal it will be up to us to look after his interests.
This is new legislation. I understand the Department of Agriculture has estimated the cost to be $100,000. This bill is very important to anyone who suffers a loss through no fault of his own, of his neighbour or of the pesticide manufacturer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I am going to disappoint the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He complained that it is almost a reflex action for members of the opposition to be critical of any legislation put forward by the government. Even before the hon. member made that suggestion, I had it in my notes to congratulate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) for bringing in this legislation. I think the hon. member for Bruce is a bit unfair in his criticism. My colleague who spoke on this matter this afternoon extended congratulations in regard to this bill breaking a new trail in the field of agricultural legislation.
Action to deal with the problem of pesticides is long overdue. This bill is just the beginning in an area which is going to become to an increasing extent the responsibility of the government. The use of pesticides in agriculture is a fairly recent occurrence. I can see protests arising about problems of pollution, not only food pollution and other damage of that kind, but general
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination soil pollution. This will be a major concern to governments that have responsibilities in these matters.
The only complaint I am going to make this afternoon is in reference to clause 13, subclause 3, of the bill. I think it goes too far in dealing with this matter, at least at this stage of development. It reads as fallows:
The decision of the Assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to this Part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal or to review by any court.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The very fact that we are moving into a new area of control gives rise to criticism against the rather arbitrary conclusiveness of this part of the bill. It is going to be difficult to anticpiate all the eventualities that will arise from the problem of pesticide poisoning and pollution. From the standpoint of bureaucratic efficiency I know that such a provision in an act, particularly a new act, is neat and tidy, but it is hardly in keeping with the support of individual rights and liberties that has been espoused by the government both inside and outside the House of Commons. The present government, which is proposing this arbitrary subclause, is supposed to be anchored to the principle of the just society. In the light of this, when we are moving into an unexplored area of government control and participation I would think we should do nothing to limit, circumscribe or curtail the individual's recourse to justice.
I was particularly taken with a phrase used by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the constitutional conference last week. In putting forward his thesis in support of a Bill of Rights the hon. gentleman used the phrase that there must be protection from the bureaucratic agencies that are spawned by government. I think that here is a prime example of what the Prime Minister was talking about. Under this bill there is the right of appeal to an assessor, but once that appeal has been made and the decision has been handed down the door to further recourse to justice is closed. I advise the minister at this stage that he might review clause 13(3) in the light of the comments that have been made this afternoon.
My hon. friend who opened the debate this afternoon said that there is a probability or a possibility of a resort to the minister. But even this is not sufficient protection for the individual. As this is a new bill, described by the hon. member for Bruce as exploring new problem areas that are becoming of public

concern, I suggest that we should keep the door of recourse to the courts open at this stage. This would give proof that the government is interested in more than lip service to propaganda phrases such as the just society, and in curtailing arbitrary decisions by the bureaucracies spawned by government in the complexities of public life today.
There is one other point I would like to make. If parliament approves this aspect of the bill which I am discussing, it will become a precedent for other arbitrary decisions of this kind. In other words, if I may use the Prime Minister's phrase, it will spawn precedents aplenty that will more and more put final decisions on justice into the hands of the bureaucrats, out of the hands of ministers, out of the hands of parliament and in particular out of the hands of the courts. Because we are breaking new ground with this bill I think the minister would want to get it established in the right way. I trust that even at this late stage he will keep the final recourse to justice in the courts open for our farmers.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have been quite critical of some other pieces of legislation that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) has introduced and I would not like to see him bring in a bill with which I agree without offering him my congratulations, and I do so now.
I also think we should give consideration to some of the comments of the last speaker. As a farmer in a rural area I will certainly be willing to act as an interested advocate for any farmer or manufacturer who has troubles in regard to matters of this kind. It has been suggested that since this is new ground we should be a little wary. At the same time I wish the minister well in his administration and I hope there will not be too many claims against the Crown.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation is a step in the right direction and I intend to vote for the bill. However, there are one or two points I would like to mention.
Some time ago the people in my area had a problem. I do not know whether it is specifically related to pesticides. I mentioned it to the minister the other day and promised to send him more information on it. I presume that information is now on its way to him through the mail.
Recently a number of colts in the Trail area died of chronic lead poisoning which was
February 17, 1969

traced to the forage on three different farms. I presume it might have developed through the use of pesticides over a period of time or might have arisen from some other source of contamination; I just do not know. The authorities are investigating the problem and I presume their reports will be issued within the next month or so. The health authorities have assured the people of the area that public health is not in jeopardy.
This bill deals only with pesticides, and it is possible that the loss suffered by the farmers in my area may be traced to some other source. The loss of animals such as these is quite a blow to small farmers. Sometimes it is very difficult to find the source of contamination. The point I am trying to make this afternoon is that when examples of contamination arise with respect to any type of farm product anywhere in the country it seems to me there should be some kind of co-ordinated attack upon the problem. The health authorities would certainly have to enter the picture.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
So far as the particular situation about which I am speaking is concerned, the provincial health services, Cominco officials at the Trail smelter, and officials of the B.C. Department of Agriculture, the federal Department of Agriculture and of the Food and Drug Directorate are interested in the problem. They want to find out how the lead contamination got into the forage and are following every lead they possibly can. I believe that a co-ordinated program should be laid out by the authorities of the federal and provincial departments of government in respect of pesticide poisoning or contamination from pollutants whether in the air or water.
While the bill covers loss to farmers from the use of pesticides, which naturally should come under the Department of Agriculture, there may be other causes of loss which should be investigated. 1 would appreciate it very much if the minister in the months ahead, if not now, would give some thought to this matter and consider having the officials of his department look into the possibility of tracking down all types of soil pollutants which in turn might get into forage. These pollutants might be detrimental in terms of loss of income to the farmers and in other ways to members of the public who might use the product concerned.
I thought I would mention this point because I feel that over the years we have to a very large degree neglected co-ordination of
Pesticide Residue Contamination the facilities which could be used to track down and probably eliminate a good many of these problems before they become too severe. I leave these thoughts with the minister. I certainly commend the department for bringing in this legislation.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say I am wildly enthusiastic about this bill; I am not dancing for joy in the aisles. I believe it has some useful purpose. I should like to say to the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher), to whose speech I listened with some interest, that he will be surprised to know to what extent and how frequently we in Her Majesty's loyal opposition seek to say to the government that we approve of its legislative proposals. We are looking for ways and means to praise the government and for an opportunity to say that measures which they bring up to some extent at least meet the problems of the country. Unfortunately, however, try as hard as we do and as often as we do the government keeps denying us the opportunity to make statements of that kind. So when we have a bill of this kind which has, to use a term in the bill, a residue of good we are inclined to praise it. This is the reason some of my colleagues both in this party and the party to the left are probably a little louder in their praise than might normally be the case.
There are some pitfalls in this legislation which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister in good faith because this is a new principle and a matter in respect of which we are breaking new ground. I have every confidence that the minister and his competent officials will keep the matter under study. While very large powers are given to the government, the minister and the assessors to act by regulation, I believe that if the minister feels changes are needed he will come back to the house so that the matter may be discussed in the light of experience and development. It is for this reason I bring some of these matters to the attention of the minister.
I feel that the farmer, to an unconscionably large degree, has been placed in the hands of the government, the minister and the officials. I say this after an examination of the various clauses in the bill. I believe this is important because the minister is breaking new ground. I had some experience in farming in the Peace River country above the 55th parallel during the previous Liberal government when a farmer was obliged to have a substantial income in addition to his income from his
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination farming operations in order to make a go of things. Fortunately, I was engaged in the practice of law and made sufficient income to prop up my income as a farmer. I rather think that under the present government we are heading for the same situation. If it should happen that the constituents in my area I feel I could do better at home, then I will go back to farming buoyed up, in view of what the Minister of Finance is doing in respect of the estate tax, by the knowledge that I will have ample income from my law practice to keep the farm going.


Eric William Kierans: Are you asking for an opinion?


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not think so. I do not believe the minister is an entirely unprejudiced witness under such conditions. In the Peace River country we raise a lot of cantaloupes and cucumbers. We even raise a lot of com. My familiarity with hybrid corn has done me a lot of good in dealing with this government. I remember one year when we farmed at the foot of a hill in a valley in the Peace River country. In the spring, after about 18 acres of corn had been planted a heavy rainfall caused water to run down the hill. The com was damaged. I learned later that the damage was caused by the residue from pesticide which had been used by the farmers over the hill. The crop was ruined.
When I read Rachel Carson's book "Silent Spring" later, I was interested in it for this reason. There are variations of the damage caused. A number of years ago a very large school of fish in the middle of the Pacific Ocean was found after examination to have absorbed certain pesticides which had caused the fish to die. In the world in which we are now living it is difficult to say where we are going, so I believe this could be very important legislation.
The legislation compels the farmer, in order to secure compensation, to throw himself entirely on the mercy of the government. In order for him to be eligible there must be a letter received by the Minister of Agriculture from the Minister of National Health and Welfare confirming that an inspection of an agricultural product of that farmer made under the Food and Drugs Act has disclosed the presence of pesticide residue and that the sale of that product would be contrary to that act or the regulations made thereunder. Having in mind how slowly the processes of government work and having in mind that the farmer must secure this certificate from the


Minister of National Health and Welfare, we can see the many problems which might arise. We might wonder how promptly the Minister of National Health and Welfare would act in making his report. The minister must also be satisfied that the pesticide residue in or upon the product is not present because of any fault of the farmer. That is a unilateral decision the minister will make. I am not saying that this or any other minister may not make the decision properly but we know these will be decisions made in the field.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Technical problems.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have been engaged in fighting technical problems for a great many years. I know how difficult it will be for a farmer faced with this problem when the damages may well run into thousands of dollars. This alone is reason enough why we should make sure we give the farmer all the protection we possibly can.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We then find that the next hurdle the farmer has to overcome is that he may be compelled by the minister to start proceedings in court to recover what the minister feels may be his lawful damages, or the minister may in turn request the farmer to assign his claim to the minister. I have had a lot of experience with cases of this type under the workmen's compensation act. They involve the individual in a great deal of difficulty. He comes into contact with government red tape at its worst. Yet this is another condition precedent to the farmer being eligible to receive some compensation. I do not quarrel with those clauses to the extent of saying they should not be there, but I am pointing out these things to indicate the problems with which the farmer will have to contend in trying to become eligible for compensation.
Now we come to the final stage to which reference has been made by my colleagues and by members of the New Democratic Party, namely, the question of appeals. I do not know where the government found the term "assessor". I think it goes back to the old admiralty courts. The assessors under the bill are judges of the Exchequer Court or the superior courts of the provinces. They act in a judicial capacity but they also act as persona designata under the terms of the legislation and are governed by its terms. Without in any way saying that these assessors will not give to the decision of each case a clear,
February 17, 1969
fair and independent judgment, they are in close connection and consultation with the government by the fact that they are entitled to promulgate rules in conjunction with the government. They can only award compensation in two instances; in other words, there can only be an appeal in two instances, one of which is if the amount awarded is less than the maximum amount of compensation prescribed under the act.
I suggest that the minister keep a close watch on what develops with regard to proceedings under the assessors and take up the very sensible point made by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth), the first spokesman for our party, concerning the possibility of appeal. The judges are judges of the Exchequer Court or a superior court and they decide in terms of thousands of dollars when they are acting in a civil capacity. When they are acting as judges of the Exchequer Court they make decisions under the provisions of the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act, the Income Tax Act, as the case may be, and their decisions are subject to appeal. The fact that they have been lawyers and have become judges does not guarantee certainty that their decisions will be sound and proper.
Having in mind all the safeguards with which the government has surrounded this legislation, I suggest to the minister that it would not be unreasonable to hope that he might be prepared to consider, after having had an opportunity to observe the proceedings that take place, the right to an appeal from the assessor under certain conditions to another tribunal which would, of course, be the appellate tribunal of each province. The appeal might be only on matters of law. I am quite convinced that there will be challenges from time to time on questions of jurisdiction, and if the assessor is going to be the sole judge, the person who can finally, completely and solely determine the law as it is applied to the case of a particular farmer, farmers should have the right to appeal. I think the average farmer is left in a situation where, on seeing what is going to happen, he will shrug his shoulders and pass it by. I am talking from my experience as a member of the bar and as a farmer. I know what these people feel with regard to these problems in the law courts. I therefore suggest to the minister that it would not be a bad idea to consider the provision of an appeal.
I also ask the minister to keep a close eye on the matter of costs. There is a provision in 29180-354
Pesticide Residue Contamination the bill that costs can be awarded against the farmer. I would think that in most of these cases it should be a simple enough issue for the farmer to bring the case himself, to act as his own counsel, to plead the facts and to ask for compensation. I would hope this would be done. In a case where the assessor determined that the minister had not exercised his discretion properly in withholding the compensation asked for I would hope that costs could be awarded against the minister. I would like to think that even if this bill does provide for such costs being awarded-and we cannot do anything about it now-the minister would be very vigilant in determining any costs against the farmer where an appeal is made to an assessor. The bill should have the broadest and most equitable interpretation in order to bring to farmers, in this new approach in our relations with the agricultural industry, the fairness and justice to which they are entitled.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate but having looked at the bill in the context of what we heard last week about the enshrinement of a bill of rights in the constitution and then taking a closer look at this bill I find that this is one of the worst violations of human rights that we possibly can have. This is one of those bills where the purpose is generally laudable but where clause after clause represents a violation of rights. The minister can shake his head but I will point out to him quite a few areas in which there is an even greater denigration of the rights of the individual than under many other acts.
First of all, let us look at clause 3(2) under which compensation will not be paid unless the minister is satisfied of "the presence of pesticide residue and that the sale of that product would be contrary to that act", or unless he "is satisfied that the pesticide residue in or upon the product is not present because of any fault of the farmer, his employee or agent, or of a previous owner of the land on which the product was grown." Does this mean that the purchaser of land is going to have to take a certificate of indemnity from his vendor to the effect that no pesticides have been used on the land, that they have not been used improperly, and if they are subsequently found to have been used improperly that there shall be indemnity to the purchaser? I am sure the minister has not even thought of that point.

February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have thought about that point very carefully.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The net
result is that the minister has ridden roughshod over the rights of a purchaser of land. At no time has the question ever been considered that a purchaser of land shall be held accountable for the negligent acts of a previous owner.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Remember, under this clause it is the negligent acts of the previous owner that penalize the present owner of the land. Yet the minister says this is perfectly all right. Any solicitor worth his salt will tell you that he will have to require from the vendor of land a certificate or undertaking of indemnity with regard to the proper use of pesticides. That is the first right that I think is being infringed upon.
Second, there is power in this bill for the making of regulations but there is not one word about the publication of those regulations. The minister can say all he wants, but I will take him through the testimony of the government officials at the time of the hearings on the anti-dumping bill to prove my point. If the minister wants to find out about this, he need only look at the Regulations Act in which there is a provision that empowers the Governor in Council to suspend the publication of any regulation. He does not have to publish if he does not want to do so. So why was this provision not included in the bill?
The government saw the point as a result of the hearings regarding the anti-dumping legislation and provided that the regulations made by the anti-dumping tribunal and by the government should be tabled by the minister and then spelled out in the act. Why was not this done with regard to this act?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They will be printed in the Canada Gazette.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is provision in the Regulations Act for this not to be done. The minister can deny it all he wants and insist that he is right, but there is in the Regulations Act a provision which empowers the Governor in Council to eliminate or set aside publication.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, this will not be done.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This
minister just sits there and says it will not be, but he will not be permanent in that

position. We cannot be guaranteed that he or his successors will not find the occasion when it shall be expedient not to publish the regulations. All I say is that a provision for publication should be included in the bill. There have been many occasions recently when more and more we have been insisting, and we will keep on insisting, that regulations be published. It would not cost the Crown any more. It is just the approach of the government to which we take exception. Again, it is big government versus the individual, and it is the individual who is adversely affected.
The minister, when he sat on this side of the house, would have been the first to join me in taking the stand that I am taking this afternoon. I am only reasserting what I have said for I do not know how many times. Certainly I must have, 20 or 30 times over the past few years, taken exception to bills wherein there has been the power to make general regulations and no statutory provision whereby those regulations had to be published. If the minister can give us an undertaking that the Attorney General will bring in an amendment to the Regulations Act forcing the publication of the regulations or the tabling of them in the house, as they should be, I will be prepared to accept it. But it will be an undertaking by this minister.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This minister undertakes that the regulations applicable to this act will be published.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right. We will see how far that binds the minister's successors. Let us consider clause 5. Again this will be a judgment decision by the minister, because clause 5 says:
No payment of compensation shall be made to a farmer pursuant to this act in respect of a loss occasioned to him by reason of pesticide residue in or upon an agricultural product until the farmer has taken any steps that the minister deems necessary
(a)	to reduce the loss occasioned to him by reason of such pesticide residue, and
(b)	to pursue any action that the farmer may have in law against
(i)	the manufacturer of the pesticide causing the residue in or upon the product, or
(ii)	any person whose act or omission resulted in or contributed to the presence of the pesticide residue in or upon the product.
Now we see the intent of this measure. No loss will be payable unless the minister first of all deems in his judgment, whether reasonably or unreasonably, that the farmer has taken steps to reduce the loss because of the
February 17, 1969	COMMONS
pesticide, even though the loss may be occasioned by the use of pesticide by a previous owner of the land. The farmer must take steps against reducing the loss. He is forced to take action in a court against the distributor of the pesticide. There is no indication as to what kind of a lawsuit he must bring. There is no indication of what action at law he will have to bring forward, or what shall be the burden of proof with regard to any loss.
This measure will force the farmer to look into the requirements of registration of pesticide used by a previous owner of the land, about which he may have no knowledge. Yet the minister says he will not pay any compensation unless the farmer has taken the steps that the minister deems necessary to reduce the loss, or has taken action against the manufacturer. What sort of thing is the government giving on one hand and putting out both hands to take back? Rights! Again, this is the iron heel of bureaucracy on the neck of the poor farmer.
The farmer may have to sue not only the manufacturer of the pesticide but the hired man of the previous owner whose act of omission or commission was responsible for the misuse of the pesticide. I ask the minister to be fair in this regard. I trust the minister will never be in the position of having to face such a provision as this if he is a poor farmer caught in the meshes of this act.
Let us look at clause 7, which says:
An inspector may at any reasonable time
(a) enter any place or premises in which he reasonably believes there is any agricultural product, pesticide or thing that will enable him to carry out any investigation that may be required by the minister for the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section 3, and may open any container or package found therein or examine anything found therein that the inspector has reason to believe will assist him in such investigation, and take samples thereof, and

The inspector may do all sorts of things. He does not need a search warrant or writ of assistance. He needs nothing. But in this day and age, when the police are seeking marijuana, hashish, l.s.d. or what have you, they must have a writ of assistance. A writ of assistance must be issued to an R.C.M.P. constable before he can enter a place where drugs are being distributed. Which is worse, a pesticide or narcotics? Which is worse, pesticides or drugs of the kind that are so popular today?
The powers given an inspector under this bill are more than those given to a policeman 29180-3541
DEBATES	5599
Pesticide Residue Contamination searching for narcotics. An inspector can look for pesticides without receiving the permission of anyone; he does this merely on his own judgment, at a reasonable time. I suppose that is anywhere between six o'clock in the morning and midnight. He can visit a farm at any reasonable time. You have only to read clause 7 to see what the inspector can do. He can take samples of the commodities. He may require any person in such place or premises to produce for inspection or for the purpose of obtaining copies thereof or extracts therefrom, any books, shipping bills, bills of lading, documents containing mixing instructions, or other documents or papers, and so on. Yet it is said there is no trampling on rights here. The inspector walks in and on his own judgment says that he wants this and that. Why does he not require the same sort of authority that a policeman must obtain when he is going after something that is much more noxious?
We are looking for pesticides here. I admit that they can do harm. But gracious me, they are nothing compared with narcotics. Yet the hands of the police are tied when dealing with narcotics. I will have something to say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) about the Food and Drugs Act in regard to these matters. Why in matters of, shall we say, routine administration for the purposes of the Department of Agriculture do we give these absolute powers to representatives of the minister?
I now come to the point raised by my colleague the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and others with regard to appeals against compensation awarded. I admit that the judges will come from the Exchequer Court and the superior courts, but I do not agree that the finding of the assessor should be final and not subject to appeal. I have raised questions about compensation, the question of law, the ownership of land, the nature of a certificate of indemnification, whether there is any notice, the degree of responsibility on the purchaser of land to determine whether there should or should not be pesticide used in connection with his farming operations. I have raised the question of the publication of regulations and why a farmer should be held responsible for ascertaining that a pesticides manufacturer has complied with all the regulations regarding the registration of the pesticide. Under this bill the farmer is the one who is responsible.
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination
Under this bill all the burden is on the farmer; there is no burden whatsoever on the minister. The minister says he will pay compensation in respect of any product on which there is a residue of pesticide, subject to several conditions. The list of conditions that follows is both arms long. The minister has covered himself all round.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not think the hon. member has read Bill C-157 or he would not make assertions of that kind,


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister has every opportunity to reply. I wish he would be advised by his legal officers. This is Bill C-155, not C-157. Why Bill C-157?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Because that is the pest control protection bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is pesticide residue compensation I am talking about, Bill C-155.


An hon. Member:: The minister is confused.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, the minister is not confused. It is the member speaking who is confused.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister, by his intervention, is trying to confuse the issue. We are dealing with the pesticide residue compensation bill, and that is what I was talking about-pesticide residue. The minister has every opportunity to speak. He has been bobbing up and down in his place like a jack-in-the-box. I do not have the right of reply beyond this point and I wish to make my case.
The minister has made many interventions. Perhaps he has exhausted his right to speak- he did not rise on a point of order or seek to ask a question; he just stood up and made an assertion. Nevertheless, I have shown how in this year of 1969, with the government insisting we are moving into a just society, when we are seeking to enshrine a bill of human rights in the constitution, we are getting legislation of the type before us which from the point of view of a lawyer is wholly abhorrent. The minister or his advisors should read the proceedings of the annual meetings of the various law societies of the provinces or of the Canadian Bar Association. They would find that time and time again protests are


made against excessive use of delegated powers this use of assessors or boards whose decisions are final and not subject to appeal.
I am not in the position to advance an amendment at this moment, but in my opinion this is terribly deficient legislation. In fact, I am prepared to vote against it on these grounds. It is a complete fraud because the burden is entirely on the farmer and the conditions imposed are all in favour of the minister. He has not taken a chance, not one chance, and the burden imposed on farmers is beyond all reason.
I hope, therefore, that further consideration will be given to this legislation. If the wording of some of these provisions cannot be amended by regulation we shall have to watch the situation most carefully because powers are granted here to inspectors which are not given to the police even for narcotic control. I suppose the minister will try to tell us that pesticide residues are worse than narcotics. The conditions imposed on farmers are almost impossible for them to fulfil. They will be the luckiest people in the world if they succeed against the department. This recalls the situation in some provinces where there is some kind of unsatisfied judgment fund. Motorists are told it is for their protection, but try recovering money from it. It is all right getting a judgment, but one almost has to take the province to court and fight the case all over again when it comes to collecting the amount awarded. As I say, I find this a most unsatisfactory piece of legislation from a legal point of view.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I notice the Minister of Agriculture is anxious to speak but I must advise him he does not have the right of reply on third reading. If it is the unanimous wish of the house he may be allowed to speak.


Stanley Howard Knowles: am willing to join in giving unanimous consent that the minister be heard, but I should like to speak, whether before or after the minister does not matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) like to speak now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The generosity of the minister overwhelms me. Perhaps I may recall the stance which was taken with
February 17, 1969	COMMONS
respect to this bill by the hon. member lor Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth). I believe I can say that he reflected the views of members of this party. We feel this is, in the main, a good piece of legislation and most of its provisions are acceptable to us.
However, as hon. members are fully aware, the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) did move a couple of amendments at the report stage and one of them had to do with the very point about which the hon. member for Kent-Essex was most critical, namely, that in subclause 3 of clause 13 of the bill the right of appeal to another court is specifically denied in the legislation. We still feel it was a mistake for that subclause to have been included and we regret that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar was defeated. It was moved on Wednesday, February 12, as reported in Hansard at page 5445, and it was voted on that afternoon, the vote being recorded at pages 5448 and 5449. The amendment was defeated by a vote of 101 to 68.
I find myself wondering whether supporters of the Progressive Conservative party will not try a further amendment. Perhaps at the end of the debate which is taking place this afternoon the house might reconsider the question, and if any hon. members to my right would like my assistance I would be glad to draft for them a motion that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back for the purpose of reconsidering clause 13, subclause 3 thereof. One should never give up. The fact that we were beaten at the report stage does not make it automatic that we will be beaten again at this stage.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I am aware of the fact that there are times when we advise people to stay away from lawyers and from the courts. There are times when it is better to get matters settled outside of the courts, or to get things settled in an atmosphere that is removed from the technicalities of the law. But I think that this case has to be looked at a little more closely. What we have here is legislation under which certain people-and I am thinking particularly of farmers in so far as they are covered by this legislation-can apply for compensation. To whom can the farmers apply? They apply to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson); they apply to the government.
Regulations in this matter are to be worked out, and we have been assured by the hon.
DEBATES	5601
Pesticide Residue Contamination member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) that it will not be long before we see these regulations. I found that an interesting comment in view of the fact that on the orders of the day this afternoon I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) when we will get the regulations made pursuant to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, when we passed that bill? The then minister of labour urged us to get it through so that he could get the regulations passed, and that was in December, 1966, over two years ago. So the regulations do not always come immediately after the bill has been passed.
In any event, here is the picture. Under regulations that will be laid down the farmer will apply to the minister-to the government-for compensation. The minister, or the Department of Agriculture, will make a determination and an award. A farmer who is not satisfied has, according to the law, the right of appeal to an assessor. The assessor will be a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada or one of the superior courts of the provinces. But he will deal with the matter as an individual on a separate appointment or assignment, not in a court following the usual court procedures.
In my opinion the farmer will feel that he is up against the same old brick wall. He applied to the minister for compensation. He was turned down or was given less compensation than he thought he was entitled to. The matter was then reviewed by an individual who happened to be a judge but who was given the assignment of assessor under an order in council passed by the government. The farmer who is aggrieved, who feels that he has not been given fair compensation, will feel that it is the same old story, that he is up against the government and has got himself involved in legalistic matters. There may well be cases where a farmer will feel that as a citizen of a free country he should have the right to take his appeal one step further, namely to a court of law.
I also note that the only matter that an assessor can consider and review when awards are either made or not made by the government is the amount of the compensation. Reading this legislation I see all sorts of legalistic technicalities. It seems to me that there is every chance in the world of there being fine points of law on which a case can turn. For a farmer to be told that he cannot get past (a) the minister and (b) the assessor, that he cannot get to the courts of the land, is
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination a denial oi a basic principle of justice as we know it in this country.
So I urge the minister to reconsider this matter. I heard what he said in response to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) the other day, and I have read again what he said in Hansard. The debate was very short. The point made by the minister was that these assessors would be judges. That was supposed to satisfy the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. But I would make the point that they are judges wearing another hat. They are judges appointed by order in council to be assessors to review whether or not the minister who is responsible for their appointment has made the right decision as to the amount of compensation.
The minister's defence, to my mind, is not even plausible. I think that the clause in the bill that denies the right to a farmer to take his appeal to a court is not in keeping with the kind of legislation we should have. As a matter of fact, I think that the very title of the bill is misleading. It reads: "An act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards." On reading that it is quite natural to assume that an appeal would be made to the courts. But this is denied by subclause 3 of clause 13, and I think this is a mistake.
Since the minister has indicated that he is going to speak I hope he will deal further with this matter and give positive assurance that the regulations will not take as long to come as the regulations relating to the Canada Labour (Safety) Code. We have been assured that they will be published. But I hope that the minister will deal more effectively than he has with the denial of the right of a farmer to take an appeal to a court of the land.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to hear the minister at this stage?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to deal with some of the questions that have been raised in the debate. First, I think it should be drawn to the attention of the house as clearly as it is possible to do so that this bill is a new departure in legislation. It provides, in the first instance, the Minister of Agriculture with authority from this house to pay
{Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]

compensation to a farmer who has suffered a loss through no fault of his own as a result of the use of pesticides. Never before has statutory authority to do this been provided to the Minister of Agriculture.
Second, the bill provides a procedure for making an appeal against any decision that the minister may make as to the amount of compensation. Therefore I think it is in the context of those two fundamental purposes of the bill that we should consider all of the clauses and regulations that flow from those two principles.
The hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) hoped that the government would demonstrate a willingness to amend the bill on the basis of experience, keeping in mind conditions that may exist from time to time. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that this government has demonstrated by the very fact that it has brought in this bill a willingness to give authority and then to establish procedures for bringing about a greater measure of justice in cases where people are caught in situations that have arisen through no fault of their own.
The hon. member also mentioned that the government is protected under the provisions of the act whereas the farmer and indeed the manufacturer are not. This bill, as I read it, Mr. Speaker, in no way deals with the manufacture of pesticides. That matter is provided for under another bill. As the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) knows, Bill C-155 deals with compensation. It deals with rules of procedure and legal authority under which compensation can be paid after a farmer has applied for compensation. I think it cannot be overemphasized that the farmer now has the right to make application for compensation, which is something he never had before. The bill goes further. He has the right to appeal the amount of compensation awarded. This, also, is a right he never had before.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
The hon. member raised the question of detentions with respect to products or chemicals. Under the provisions of this act there will be no detentions. They may be ordered under the authority of another bill to come before the house, namely, Bill C-157.
Although under this law the farmer or plaintiff has no right of appeal; neither may
February 17, 1969

the minister appeal the decision of the assessor. As has been said over and over again, the assessor, under clause 11 of the bill must be a person designated from the Exchequer Court of Canada or the superior courts of the provinces.
In arguing points of principle the hon. member for Kent-Essex tried to argue both sides of the case and he seemed to take contradictory positions. For example, he argued that there should be sufficient flexibility within the provisions of this bill to permit the Department of Agriculture and all assessors to deal fairly and justly with cases. Then he argued that there should be far more specific matters written into the bill. That would take away from the flexibility he was advocating two minutes earlier. I agree with him that in this departure in our law we need flexibility. We will need flexibility on the basis of experience to bring in amendments to the regulations if the regulations are insufficient to provide justice. Above all, the provisions of the bill must be flexible.
The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) at one point talked of animal carcasses which had been condemned because they contained residues of pesticides. I agree that compensation would be paid under the provisions of this bill. I must apologize for interrupting him, since at the specific moment I rose on the point of order he was talking about maximums that were to be raised or increased with respect to compensation to be paid on any one animal. That matter is dealt with in Bill C-156. We intend to prescribe these maximums by order in council instead of having them fixed, as they are now, in the statute.
I agree with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). He said that this is the first time a farmer has had the right to appeal. To give him that right was one of the major purposes in bringing forward this legislation.
The hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) referred to clause 13(3). He pointed out that the decision of the assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to that part of the bill is final and conclusive. The hon. member for Edmonton West, (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others made a great deal of to-do about this subclause. That subclause has not been introduced for the purpose of denying anyone any fundamental right. What must be borne in mind is that before a farmer can in fact make an application for com-
Pesticide Residue Contamination pensation his product must have been condemned under the Food and Drugs Act by an inspector working for the requisite department. It seems to me it is easier and better for a farmer to bring an appeal to an assessor and to have that appeal final, because all the procedures involved will be less expensive, I suggest, and simpler for the farmer to proceed under. The contention that has been made that here we have a case of the government fully protecting itself in the matter of an appeal and leaving the onus on the farmer in all cases is just not credible. That is because the limited purposes of the act are to provide an authority which will enable compensation to be paid to farmers whose produce has been condemned.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Well, that is what the minister says.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I see the hon. member for Edmonton West raises an objection. I suppose one could go through an act and pick out methodically those sections that are inserted to make sure that public funds are adequately protected, or that any department of government will spend public moneys in a certain way. Under this legislation it is necessary for us to know that, within reason, necessary action is being taken and that a matter will be referred to assessors who, as has been pointed out a dozen times today, will be competent to listen to evidence and judge whether the minister's decision with respect to the amount of compensation is fair or not fair.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Would the minister permit a question? Why does he insist that the bill shall exclude the right of appeal to the courts, on the ground particularly that such a right would involve great expense for farmers? In most cases that right would not be used frivolously. Why does the minister not leave the door of final appeal to the courts open to the farmer?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The matter works both ways. The department or the minister cannot appeal from the assessor.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: But what about the individual? What about his rights?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We take the position that at some point the decision should be final. That point is spelled out in clause 13(3).


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is what we are complaining about. This is the just society.
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) referred to colts in his constituency that were affected and wondered whether the problem is being looked into. The entire matter involves the co-ordination of activities of several departments of government which are responsible for pollution and contamination. We are working on that problem with others who are involved. At present there does not seem to be any hazard to human health. The matter the hon. member raised does not come under this legislation in any case because what he referred to is not produce that has been condemned for sale. Therefore there can be no compensation under the provisions of this bill.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had a good deal to say about certain legal aspects of the bill and I do not want to argue with him on the finer legal points. He said that the members of his party would like to find ways to compliment the government for bringing in good legislation. He went on to say that they could not find many such opportunities. I hope he is not suffering from some kind of narrow or tunnel vision, because there have certainly been a great number of opportunities during the session to compliment the government. If he is unable to recognize those opportunities, that is his problem and not mine.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Name two.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member also raised the matter of the technical competence of personnel in determining whether a farmer has taken every possible action to reduce his amount of loss. It is fair to suggest to him that if we set up another route of appeal to determine whether pesticides in fact were present, or how they got where they are, it would be tantamount to setting up another technical committee to do exactly the same kind of work that will have been done by technicians in the Department of Agriculture and many other competent people in this field who have been called upon to examine the situation. With regard to the assignment to the minister of the farmer's right to sue the manufacturer, I cannot agree with him in that respect. That was included in order to make payment sooner than if we were to wait for the farmer himself to exhaust all of the possibilities of reducing the loss or indeed taking action which may be the responsibility of others.
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I would also advise hon. members that we do conduct a co-ordinated attack in conjunction with the Food and Drug Directorate, the Department of Agriculture and provincial authorities in order to solve problems of pul-lution and contamination. At this stage we do not feel that a set procedure would be applicable as pollution and contamination may vary greatly. For the information of hon. members there is also an interdepartmental committee on pesticides whose main function is co-ordination of effort.
I do not intend to go very much further, Mr. Speaker. I am giving this explanation because all of the clauses in the bill were discussed in the standing committee. I would like to say to the hon. member for Edmonton West that in so far as the right of inspectors to enter premises to take samples is concerned there is no right under this act for an inspector to do so unless a farmer applies for compensation. The inspector then has this right because this bill deals with compensation.
He also mentioned the publishing of regulations. He said he has asked 20 or 30 times during the course of several other debates that it be mandatory for the government to publish regulations. This is a matter to be taken up with other departments. The Regulations Act requires publication in the Canada Gazette of any regulation affecting the rights and duties of a citizen and the penalties they may incur. If the hon. member has any argument with that interpretation I suggest he take it up with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner).
The regulations under this act will be published. It is necessary to have sufficient authority under the act. When public funds are being used it is necessary that all reasonable action be taken so that there will not be fraudulent practices. Public interest in the national treasury must be properly protected.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: May I ask
the minister a question at this point? I have not the right to speak a second time. Under clause 7 there is no restriction that the inspection must be limited to the land of the farmer who applies for compensation. The inspector may move into adjoining land or other premises. To that extent I say this goes farther than the power of the police under the Narcotics Act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That, Mr. Speaker, is not the intention of the government. I do not want to
February 17, 1969

Expropriation Act
argue with the legal competence of my hon. friend in this respect. There is no intention that it shall be used indiscriminately or to abuse any citizen. With the exception of this bill, no citizen of Canada has any right to compensation for a product withheld from the market due to pesticide residue under the Food and Drugs Act. This bill at least provides the authority to the department to pay.
The hon. member for Peace River dealt with the fact that the farmer is obliged to reduce the loss occasioned to him to whatever extent possible and to pursue any action he may have in law against the manufacturer or any other person. It may be necessary for the farmer to wash, trim or sort farm products in order to reduce his loss. That is why this provision is included in this bill. We must be satisfied that the farmer has done everything within reason to keep the loss as low as possible.
I repeat what I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a step forward in providing authority to the Minister of Agriculture to pay compensation out of the public treasury to a farmer who has had his products condemned or withheld from sale by another department in pursuit of their activities to reduce the human health hazard. There is a right to appeal decisions that have been made. That has not been provided in any other act previously. We have taken a long step forward to provide a higher measure of justice to a farmer who has had his product withheld from sale through no fault of his own.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: I had not originally intended to enter this debate, Mr. Speaker, until I read the curious provisions in part II of this measure dealing with compensation appeals. I suggest to the minister that they be scrapped and provision made for an appeal to an Exchequer Court judge or Supreme or Superior Court judge. Many people in this country feel that judges should not be subjected to criticism because of outside duties. However, by calling them assessors in this case this criticism would be justified. A farmer should have the right to carry his grievance as high as possible. The provisions regarding compensation appeals cover everything in regard to the appointing of assessors with the exception of saying that the judge concerned shall wear overalls under his judicial robes to make the farmer feel at home when he appears before an assessment tribunal.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)1-Post Office-inquiry as to closing of post offices; the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather)-Principle of accessibility of reports and studies undertaken for the government by outside professional groups; the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman)-Veterans Affairs-Feasibility study of guaranteed annual income.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Mr. Thompson (Red Deer)-That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to amending the provisions of the Expropriation Act (R.S.C. 1952, c. 106) with a view to giving greater protection to citizens against arbitrary interference with their property rights by departments of the federal government, and to the establishment of more suitable procedures for the transfer of title and possession of land expropriated under the authority of this act.
Mr. G. W. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Red Deer I have been asked to speak to this notice of motion and to ask that it be withdrawn from the order paper in view of the fact that a similar motion was debated last fall and also because of the announced intention of the Minister of Justice to introduce a new expropriation law in the near future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
5606

February 17, 1969
Housing



HOUSING


Robert Jardine McCleave: That the question of housing in Canada, including public housing, expropriation practices affecting older homes, financing of home building, the drawing up of a national code of minimum housing standards, and transport services for residential areas, be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, in order that the said committee may consider and report upon all aspects of national housing policies and their administration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is considerable interest in the housing problems of this country. There are several reasons for this. One is that the problems have certainly not disappeared and possibly have become aggravated since we met here for the opening of parliament in September last year. Second, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has placed a public document before us which, while contentious in certain aspects, is certainly written in a refreshing kind of English and tends to present the problems rather well.
I wish to deal with particular aspects of my motion, and I shall try to get through my contribution as quickly as possible so that other hon. members may have an opportunity to take part in the debate. Furthermore, since the Minister of Transport has promised legislation within a short while it will not particularly grieve me if my motion is talked out or even if it is defeated. In any event it provides a useful vehicle for the next 57 minutes or so to have a go at housing problems.
One great deficiency in the report of the task force on housing concerns the problems of those in the lower income brackets. The report is very weak in this area. To compound the weakness, the minister has frozen public housing programs until new measures can be introduced, and so what is a bad problem can only become worse. During the debate we had on housing on November 12 last I pointed out some of the problems relating to the need for housing of those with low incomes. As recorded at page 2661 of Hansard for that date I quoted G. Roland Hennessy, Assistant Executive Director of the Federation of Catholic Charities in Montreal, as saying that in 1946 27 per cent of the population of Montreal was destitute and in 1966 the count was 33.3 per cent.
Mr. Hennessy said today 38 per cent live in "poverty, privation and misery" and 50 per cent suffer unbearable financial hardships.

The minister's freeze on public housing will be no solace to the people of Montreal who are in that plight.
With respect to the great city of Toronto Robert B. Bradley of the Young Men's Christian Association has written:
In metro Toronto we have a waiting list of approximately 13,340 bona fide applications representing some 26,000 children desperately in need of instant housing they can afford.
From the other great metropolis of Canada we have another staggering statistic pointing to the need for action and, as we know, Toronto is the only city in Canada that has made fairly substantial use of National Housing Act policies and national funds to do something about the plight of the poor. Therefore I think the minister's freeze is a great error and is not calculated to give assurance to those who need better housing in the so-called just society.
My motion also refers to the need for drawing up a national code of minimum housing standards. Here I borrow from the example of my own city of Halifax where ordinance 50 has been in effect since 1958, dealing with minimum standards for housing accommodation. Just before coming to the chamber to take part in this debate I called Bill Clancy, the information officer for the city of Halifax. He in turn contacted G. B. Jefferson, the building inspector, and they have provided me with information which I think will be of interest to hon. members.
In the years between 1961 and 1968 there were 2,909 violations under ordinance 50 where the city building inspector required that repairs be done. All these were carried out with the exception of 173 cases where the homeowners had to be taken to court before they would repair their property. The ordinance is a pretty wide, encompassing one. It deals with light, plumbing, room space, outlets, stoves and ranges and that sort of thing. I am told by Mr. Clancy that of the 2,909 violations where repairs were ordered they were mostly structural repairs.
The reason I dwell at some length on the need for minimum standards is fairly obvious. We cannot go out holus-bolus, level all the old housing stock in Canada and then expect everyone to have a roof over his or her head. A minimum housing standard is one of the ways to ensure that even older homes are kept up to a reasonable standard so that the need for housing does not become
February 17, 1969

worse. I know that this has worked reasonably well in my own city even though Halifax, like other places, also has a housing shortage.
Some of the points about ordinance 50 may be of interest to hon. members. When the inspector of buildings determines that there are reasonable grounds to conclude that there has been a violation of the provisions of the ordinance he gives written notice to the owner or occupant of the building concerned requiring certain action to be carried out within 180 days, and if they do not do it then court action follows. Perhaps members would be interested in one particular section of the ordinance. I will put section 4 on the record:
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The owner of every dwelling shall maintain the same and every part thereof in a state of good repair. For the purposes of this section "a state of good repair" shall mean:
1.	That the roof is so maintained as not to leak and all water from the roof is drained and conveyed therefrom so as not to cause wet floors, walls or ceilings or to cause a nuisance to adjacent buildings, or not to overflow upon abutting or adjoining property.
2.	That all walls, foundations, basements, cellars, steps, floors, ceilings, stairways, stairwells and railings are maintained in a good and safe condition to the satisfaction of the inspector of buildings.
3 That the exterior is maintained in a clean and tidy state to the satisfaction of the inspector of buildings.
So I suggest that from one standpoint at least the setting of minimum standards for buildings is one useful step that could be undertaken. I realize that our parliamentary jurisdiction in this field is probably limited, but at least through our great Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation we can work with the municipalities in an effort to bring about improvement in housing by encouraging the use of such ordinances.
Another point I should like to make concerns the cost of homes. I believe we have been deficient, federally speaking, in not taking advantage of research to bring about new techniques in mass production or other modern methods in an effort to bring down the cost of housing. We know that incredible steps were taken in research by the United States and Russian space teams in respect of insulating the ships they have hurled into outer space so that the very cold temperatures on the outside would not affect the constant temperature on the inside. Someone told me it is possible to insulate so that a cup of coffee can be kept at about the same temperature for 500 years. If we are capable of that kind of research and that kind of product we 29180-3551
Housing
should be able to come up with equally good answers in respect of lowering the cost of housing for the citizens of Canada.
The removal of the sales tax is old hat so far as reducing the cost of homes is concerned but yet is an important element.
I should like to dwell for a moment on mortgage interest rates. The figures are incredible when one looks at the cost of carrying a mortgage. I have taken the example of a $20,000 mortgage and have looked at it from the standpoint of a 20-year payment period and a 35-year payment period. I arrived at both the monthly rate at 6 per cent and at 9J per cent and the total amount paid. Let us take first of all a 20-year mortgage in the amount of $20,000. At 6 per cent the monthly payment is $142.44 or a total payment, including principal and interest, over the 20 years of $34,185.60. In other words, the principal payment is $20,000 and the interest payment is $14,185.60. But at today's interest rate of around 9J per cent on a $20,000 mortgage for a 20-year period the monthly payment would be $184.05, the total payment would be $44,172, the repayment of principal would be $20,000 and the interest payment would be $24,174.
I now move to a 35-year period because of the flirtation of the task force led by the Minister of Transport with a long-term mortgage of that type. For a period of 35 years the monthly payment at a rate of interest of 6 per cent is $113.06. The total repaid over the 35-year period, assuming one lives that long, would be $47,485.20. In other words, $20,000 would be paid in principal and $27,485.20 would be paid in interest. All those payments were at the 6 per cent level. It has been some time since a home owner in this country could finance a home at 6 per cent. Let us see what happens when the interest is 9J per cent. On a $20,000 mortgage paid back at 9J per cent interest over a period of 35 years the monthly payment is $161.57. The total payment would be $67,859.40. In other words, $20,000 would be paid back in principal and $47,859.40 would be paid in interest.
This type of financing, this type of burden, is really at the heart of some of the recommendations in the task force report. We in this parliament cannot blind ourselves to the need of coming to grips somehow with the problem of high interest rates. I have one suggestion in this field which might at the same time solve the problem of the interest rate and the problem faced by superannuated civil servants. I believe that the government

February 17, 1969
Housing
now pays 4 per cent on the money it borrows from the superannuation fund. If it paid 6 per cent or 7 per cent there would be sufficient money to pay more to the superannuated civil servants and the government could provide money for housing at a cheaper interest rate. That may seem like a very simple solution but I believe it at least merits some consideration by the members of the House of Commons.
There is a final point in respect of urban transportation with which I should like to deal, but I said I would keep well within my allotted time and therefore I shall thank the house for its consideration and listen with interest to the views of other hon. members.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: trend established in the past, there will have to be a point, which we hope will be reached in the very near future, when a national housing policy must very strongly favour those Canadians who have limited earnings, let us say up to $5,000 a year. I think we will have to first meet the demand from this sector of the Canadian public.
Let us consider the figures made available by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. The figure of 170,000 dwelling units a year reflects, in the vast majority of cases, housing for middle and higher income groups. My understanding is that in any given year perhaps only 2 per cent of the total number of dwelling units represents public housing. Therefore if we continue a policy of housing centring around 170,000 or 200,000 dwelling units a year, such a policy will continue to meet the demand of those who by and large, with sacrifice of course, can afford the down payment and the further payments required to buy a home. But it will not meet the demand of those on limited incomes.
I should like to give the house an example. In metropolitan Toronto alone there are over 13,000 people on the waiting list for public housing. These people are waiting for the type of house they can afford. They cannot afford those on the market at the present time. This list consists of a variety of segments of the population, amongst whom are a great many mothers who are the breadwinners for their families. This figure of 13,000 is a considerable one and is the cause of grave concern.
While the policy of providing public housing through Central Mortgage and Housing, the provincial agency which derives funds from it, and the municipal government, has been as active as it could be, as the years go by the problem does not seem to resolve itself and in fact seems to be getting ahead of us. Therefore it commands enormous attention. In addition there is the question of large urban centres. Here I am speaking of the larger Canadian city in which every year a larger or smaller number of migrants and immigrants settle, depending upon the conditions which exist at the time. The nature of migration and immigration is such that in the vast majority of cases these people have limited reserves and funds and are usually searching for employment. They are people for whom I think our society has to make provision, at least in the initial stage, for adequate housing upon settlement. In the larger cities this is becoming a real problem.
Housing
With regard to housing as defined briefly here by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), one cannot of course ignore the question of urban renewal, its implications, and everything that has been written on the subject in recent times. I urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) to continue to strengthen the policy of urban renewal because we have learned techniques, through experience in the past, which are extremely useful.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Perhaps one might be prone to condemn what has been done so far in certain areas, but in the final analysis one has to say that if errors have been made, it is these which have helped us to arrive at certain conclusions this year. It was necessary and indispensible for us to have had this experience. Therefore, urban renewal as we have seen it in Canada so far has had a highly desirable effect. It was the best possible policy available to those interested in housing in the light of the historic experience in this country, and it was the best possible way of resolving the problem in an urban centre. Certainly, there are ways of improving upon that policy. This is the approach to take. I do not think the answer lies in the dispersal of public housing in the community. It lies probably in a combination of approaches because what has been done in the past has proven to be useful and the new ideas which have emerged could also prove extremely useful to Canadians today and to future generations.
Inadvertently one shifts back and forth, as I have been doing, touching upon urban renewal and public housing because there is a tendency to mix the two. Urban renewal sometimes includes public housing, sometimes it does not. Urban renewal has brought about new houses in areas where public housing was needed, and therefore the two are not always synonymous. What I am saying in essence is that it is desirable to continue our urban renewal policies because the planners in our cities, such as Hamilton, Toronto, Montreal or other large centers, are now in a position to submit plans and make proposals which reflect refinements and techniques which are the result of past experience. There is a certain sophistication in Canadian urban renewal techniques of which we can be extremely proud. We can only be proud of them because we have learned from our experience in our cities through the years. This is the attitude we should take in order to build upon the achievements of the past.

February 17, 1969
Housing
It is with these thoughts in mind that I would urge the minister to continue the urban renewal policies, with the innovations required, and to give all possible financial and other assistance to the public housing endeavours in our major Canadian centres. These endeavours should be encouraged and stimulated because public housing is in the greatest demand. I am inclined to think that the trend toward greater demand for public housing will not diminish. I think it will increase through the years for a number of sociological reasons which are, perhaps, beyond the scope of this particular motion. The motion involves a number of provincial acts. For instance, if one were to consider Ontario, there is a provincial act which has implications both for housing and for transportation in a metropolis. I am referring here to the assessment act, as it is known in Ontario. This act as presently drafted could be termed a rurally oriented assessment act for a number of reasons. At present it penalizes the home owner who endeavours to improve the quality of his house. Except for a coat of paint, anything that a property owner in Ontario does to his house makes him liable to reassessment and to an increase in taxes. How can one expect the maintenance of quality houses or the improvement of the stock of housing available in any community in this province if the initiative of the individual owner is stifled in this manner? It is a form of what I may call private enterprise urban renewal which should be actively encouraged. By that I mean the encouragement of the initiative of the individual owner who tries to improve his house. Such measures will, I am sure, discourage future urban renewal projects unless the respective provincial acts are reviewed and changed in the light of the needs of our large cities. The assessment act is a typical example.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: In rising to support the motion of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), I would like to make a point about the importance of the examination of some of the recommendations that have come to us regarding housing. I think it is most important that this matter be referred to the committee and that we have the benefit of the views of people with wide municipal experience such as, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), and the

hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens). I think when members who have had this type of experience have examined the report of the task force they will find the report wanting.
I find it difficult to understand how someone like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is obviously looking for a place in history, was able to come in with such as "nothing" report. As a matter of fact, it is a very damaging report to the future of housing in this country. Perhaps, this is not the way the minister feels. Perhaps he feels that he has accomplished a great deal with his task force. However, I for one cannot avoid the feeling that he started out with a preconceived notion and ended up with a preconceived notion; that the dialogue was just a facade and in many ways a fooling of the public who participated. Had he started out with an open mind, had he truly consulted people with experience in this field, and had he been willing to listen, his report undoubtedly would have been different. He seems to be doing everything the wrong way and taking all the wrong attitudes.
First of all, let us look at the question of mortgage money. Apparently, the minister's solution is for the government not to raise funds but to throw the whole responsibility for the availability of funds on the shoulders of the private lenders, even to the extent of reducing whatever protection exists in the interest rate at the moment. I suggest that such a proposition would be disastrous to the future of housing in this country and would remove the only lever that the federal government has for ensuring that its responsibilities for housing can be discharged. This is the only instrument at the minister's disposal for making some of the changes that he wants to make. Let us consider one of the changes that he has discussed, namely the question of a national building code.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
It is obvious that the multiplicity of building codes across Canada has frustrated the best efforts of people who are trying to cope with the housing shortage. Something has to be done in terms of land use, construction costs and all the other things which come under a building code. How can the minister gain acceptance of a standard building code applicable across this country, having regard to the special difficulty of doing so under our federal constitution? I suggest there is one
February 17, 1969

way in which we could do this. Instead of directing responsibility for raising mortgage money back to the private institutions, as he seems to be doing, he might step up the government's program to attract money to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the N.H.A. In other words, he would have the opportunity of saying, in effect: We shall not make N.H.A. money available in any area which does not conform to a national code.
This is the one way open to him if he wants to break through die multiplicity of nonsense codes which presently exist across the country. If the minister does not know why these codes have come into being, somebody should tell him. They exist, not because the municipalities do not want a national code or because they do not recognize the logic of establishing such a code. They exist with certain objectives in mind. Some of them are perverse. They were created deliberately to ensure that certain kinds of housing activity do not take place. Unless the minister is prepared to break down this determination on the part of some municipalities to restrict the type of housing built in their areas, his whole effort will come to nothing and the desire to establish a national building code is bound to be frustrated. Of course, everyone who has been associated with municipal work knows how heavy are the burdens imposed. One can even understand why municipalities have gone to the extent of creating codes almost impossible to comply with. Some municipalities around Toronto insist, for example, that only houses costing more than a certain sum can be built.
The reason is obvious. They want to strike a balance between revenue from industrial, commercial and residential assessments. A municipality which fails to do this finds itself in grave difficulties. Most municipalities count on revenue from industrial and commercial assessments to help them underwrite the cost of residential construction. A municipality which gives no consideration to these questions may easily find itself a bedroom town. The revenue from industrial and commercial assessments goes elsewhere, and it is left with the burden of providing schools, social services, sanitation and so on for its resident population. The minister should be prepared to deal with this situation, not by bludgeoning the municipalities but by offering alternatives to the present system.
This is one suggestion which I should like to offer, one which could perhaps be placed
Housing
before a committee for examination. A way has to be found of collecting at least some of the revenue from commercial and industrial assessments at the federal level. It could then be redistributed across this country on a more equitable basis. This would make it possible to get to the root of some of the difficulties faced by parts of this nation.
It is obvious that difficulties arise when all the industries are in one place and all the houses are somewhere else. Then again, there are depressed areas which nevertheless have to bear the cost of education and social services for a population a considerable part of which will ultimately choose to leave the area to seek employment elsewhere. Plainly, the federal government lacks the power to collect industrial and commercial assessments as is done presently by the provinces. But it could be done in a different way. It could be done through a special tax on corporations, the proceeds from which would be redistributed across the country. The argument might be advanced that the provinces would not be amenable to such a suggestion. Mr. Speaker, in Canada as a whole there is one province which has a special concern about its culture and its language. That province might find it difficult to accept such a proposition as I have advanced.
By and large, however, I believe the English speaking provinces would be willing to listen to a proposal of this kind, as they have in the past been ready to listen to propositions relating to federal aid to particular areas. There does not seem to be much difficulty as far as English speaking Canada is concerned. To my mind, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) does a disservice in this regard when he says that every province must be treated in the same way. In doing so, he is refusing to recognize that every province is not exactly the same as the others. Each has its own difficulties, its own hang-ups, if you like.
These are approaches which should be explored. I am not suggesting that the proposal just outlined is the only answer. I am not even sure the provinces would accept an answer of that kind. What I am suggesting is that these ideas should go to a committee where they could be aired and discussed by hon. members experienced in municipal affairs who would also give us the benefit of their own ideas and get us on the road to making good the shortage of public housing in Canada.

February 17, 1969
Housing
My feeling about the approach taken by the Minister of Transport is that it is not useful in the least. I am surprised, for instance, that the government has neglected to avail itself of the services of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), a former mayor of the City of Toronto. I can remember that a couple of years ago the hon. member for York West, out of his long experience of municipal government, made a suggestion that urban transportation might be provided free of charge. There was not much of a response to this idea, yet I think it was a very good one. Ideas like that should be discussed. We tend to subsidize almost every kind of transportation except urban transportation. The number of cars crowding our highways create a vast handicap in the development of our society, yet we constantly look the other way. And when suggestions such as that put forward by a former mayor of Toronto are advanced they are largely ignored; it is even difficult to find a forum in which they can be adequately discussed.
I cannot understand why the Minister of Transport should have taken such a shortsighted position with regard to the raising of mortgage money. No one is asking that the government be given special advantages in connection with the raising of mortgage monies to be lent out again to the people, but surely we should not say that the government ought to be placed at a disadvantage, as the minister appears to be doing. After all, if the trust companies and the banks can go out and borrow from the public why should the government not be able to do so? Why should it be less worthy of this kind of trust than are the financial institutions of this nation?
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
There are some advantages in a government going to the money market. First of ah, governments are usually able to borrow funds at a lower rate of interest because of public confidence. Secondly, their mark-up would be less than that of present financial institutions. Thirdly, by having access to these funds they could set the conditions under which the funds are lent.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) made what I thought was an excellent observation. He pointed out that at the moment much of the money that is being lent by private mortgage companies goes for high priced housing, that almost none of it goes for low cost housing. Anybody who argues that the federal government should not be able to

make such vast sums of money available because it might lay down conditions, should ask himself why people are prepared to accept the conditions laid down by private lenders. Do they think that they are more trustworthy than their own government, or more intelligent than the elected representatives of the people? In those areas in which the government has become involved in housing it has at least started to act in the public interest in a way that the private lenders either will not or are not able to act.
Therefore, I think that if the minister gives up this opportunity to assemble funds to be used under the direction of the government, he really gives up the opportunity, first of all, to influence the direction of housing in this country and therefore dooms his own proposals. Secondly, he gives up the right that I think the government has of making some value judgments about which groups in our society need the most help at any given time.
Another point that should be examined is mobility. The Minister of Transport has made a virtual fetish of home ownership. He has consigned all those who rent to the status of second class citizens with his snide little comment about vertical filing boxes, as though anybody who lived in an apartment was to be frowned upon, as though there were something wrong with somebody who did not own his own house or piece of land. How shortsighted can this minister be! In light of the evidence today one cannot help but realize we are living in an increasingly mobile society, one which will become not less mobile but more mobile. Rigid home ownership for many of our people is an inhibition to this mobility. If there is any single thing in this country preventing movement of workers from depressed areas to areas that offer more opportunity it is the emphasis that is placed on home ownership. These people are locked in, as though somebody had put them behind bars.
In his report, the minister referred to the high cost of transfer fees, legal fees and realty fees. Often the transfer fees exceed the capital increase in the property. The high cost of fees seriously interferes wih people moving from one area to another or from one kind of residence to another.
There is another kind of mobility. For example, why should a person live in one house all his life? Surely, the needs of the young married couple are altogether different from the needs of the family of five or six. Surely, those needs change again when the children grow up and leave the homes of
February 17, 1969

their parents. Needs change throughout one's life. Therefore, why retard economic mobility, and also this social mobility that is so obviously required? For this reason I find it very difficult to understand the kind of propositions that are put forth in the report of the task force, and this is why I believe the house should unanimously approve the resolution that has been introduced by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. Mc-Cleave) as a worth-while contribution to the examination of housing problems in Canada.


Mr. Barney Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, it appears I have very little time in which to deal with a subject that is of considerable interest to all of us. However, I think those of us who have spoken can all be grateful for the opportunity to talk about urban problems. I wish to compliment the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) for introducing this subject. He has shown his usual consideration and thoughtfulness by recognizing that the report of the task force has been submitted and that it contains many recommendations of merit.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) made some severe criitcisms of the minister. I concede that one can look at the report and find much missing or reasons to be discouraged because we have not moved sufficiently fast. But let us bear in mind what has happened. I think we are very fortunate indeed to have a report of this kind before the members of the house and the people of this country at this time. Considering the very limited period of time the task force was at work, I think it has come up with a fairly comprehensive document that is authoritative. Many people say there is nothing new in it, but I say there are many things that are new as well as many things that we knew before. The report is comprehensive and, coming from such a group, it is also authoritative. We are fortunate that the study was not given to a royal commission because it might have dragged on for years.
As the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants properly pointed out, the report does fall short in certain areas, particularly that relating to public housing. This is true also of student housing, but perhaps properly so. The intention when the task force began its work was to bring in a report containing recommendations that could be implemented in time for the 1970 building season. I feel it is an amazing feat to have the report at this time. There are many things particularly good
Housing
about it. First, it sets the proper climate; it establishes the proper priorities and challenges the private sector to do its job; and it sets a target of a minimum of one million homes in five years.
In the limited time at my disposal, I will deal with but one point in detail, namely, financing. If I may be so bold, I should like to refer to my own submission to the task force which deals with mortgage funds. I will not quote it verbatim. I suggested an infusion of large amounts of money that are now in low yield investments into the mortgage market. I am talking particularly of funds that belong to the older people in our society, who have been through the depression and who guard their money very jealously, and rightly so. I can understand their concern about this. Their money is deposited in trust companies or banks where they make a 4 per cent return. If they were to make 5 per cent they would become nervous; they would think it unsafe and would rather bury it in the ground than take a chance.
I suggest, in keeping with some of the recommendations of the report, that a crown corporation be established to channel these funds, along with perhaps funds from the superannuation fund of the federal government about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) speaks, into the mortgage market. The need to give these people a much better return on their investment and a much better pension is one of the priorities that we must face in this house.
The fact is that when we guarantee this money to private lenders, mortgage companies, trust companies, insurance companies and so on, we should be able to guarantee the investments of our most senior and beloved citizens. According to estimates I have made, there are probably 100,000 elderly people in Canada with $10,000 tucked away. This would realize $1 billion, sufficient to provide 50,000 $20,000 mortgages. It might also be reasonable to assume that there are 10,000 people with $50,000 tucked away, and this would produce another half a billion dollars. Perhaps we have enough there for 75,000 mortgages of $20,000. If all the complaints we have heard about the estate tax are valid it would appear that another 10,000 people each have $100,000 tucked way. That makes another $1 billion. There is enough money put away in safe investments to provide 125,000 mortgages of $20,000. Perhaps we could bring this money
February 17, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination into the mortgage market, guarantee its safety, and use it as leverage. It could be introduced into the market at a point or two below the current mortgage rate. To compensate those bringing the money forward, the profit on this money could be made deductible from taxes. Perhaps qualifying provisions permitting the deduction of such profits from taxes could be made similar to the provision contained in the old age security legislation which spells out those who are eligible to take advantage of certain parts of that legislation.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair, to resume it at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Olson for the third reading of Bill C-155, to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, at the moment before five o'clock I was making a speech on a bill to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue and to provide for appeals from compensation awards. A short fraction of time later I was speaking on a housing resolution I had placed on the order paper some time ago. Since then we have all been treated to a series of slides by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) in charge of housing. If I spoke about them I would be out of order. I will return to the business of pesticide compensation.
I wish to make as succinctly as I can two points regarding this bill because several

other bills hinge upon the provision that we are being asked to enact in this particular measure. First, with regard to the compensation appeal, I object to the suggestion that judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Superior or Supreme court of the provinces, be appointed assessors under this particular measure. Before stopping at five o'clock, I stated I presumed it was the intention of the minister to ask these judges to garb themselves in overalls under their judicial robes so they would appeal more to the people appearing before them, the farmers of Canada. I object to the principle enshrined in part two of this bill. As a lawyer, I feel this is a wrong principle. I think when judges of the court are asked to stray outside their jurisdiction and assume other titles, such as commissioner or royal commissioner, this makes it difficult for themselves and their courts.
Any farmer in Canada seeking compensation for damage from pesticides would be much happier if he could appeal from the Minister of Agriculture and the departmental officials to a court rather than appeal to somebody called an assessor. I suggest he would much rather hear the words "Here come de judge" rather than "Here comes the assessor".
Looking through this portion of the bill which brings me to my feet, I am confirmed in my decision to resist it. I shall argue as eloquently as I can with the minister and the government that this particular portion be changed and that other acts be changed as well. Other acts hinge on what we are being asked to pass now. It is wrong for the government to have the right to set a maximum amount of compensation for the farmer who suffered damage from pesticides. The farmer should be entitled to seek damages first from the minister, then if he is not satisfied, from an impartial authority. It is wrong to set a ceiling on compensation.
The minister would serve the purposes of the act and the farmers of Canada much better if he would agree to strike out most of part II covering the compensation appeal and substitute the words that the farmer would have a right to appeal on a question of law, a question of fact, or both. This would be an appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada or provincial judges acting in their stead. In that way, the farmer would feel he had at least been given his day in court.
I must confess I had not studied the particular sections until today. I was horrified when I did study them. The minister should hearken to voices such as my own who regard
February 17, 1969

this type of approach to the law of Canada as an anathema. According to clause 13, an appeal may be made to an assessor who may then refer the matter back to the minister for such further action as the assessor may direct. The assessor, who would be a judge of the Exchequer, Superior or Supreme Court, would become functus, his job would be discharged.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
There is nothing to say that the minister must accept what the assessor has directed at that particular point. There is nothing to say, and in fact I think the law would point the other way, that the farmer if aggrieved in respect of what the minister did at that point could carry the case any further. Of course, this is a point in the law which any dozen lawyers could interpret in a dozen different ways; but I believe a lawyer would say, in looking at this, that the danger would be once the assessor had made up his mind, although the minister would be either free to accept or reject the recommendation, that the applicant had no further course for relief. This is the reason I say that the minister and the government, dedicated as they are to lip service to a just society, whatever that may be, should take a fresh look at this matter. Many other acts are involved in this. I hope that the minister and the government will decide that these many paragraphs should be replaced by a simply expressed right to appeal to a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Superior Court of Quebec or the supreme courts of the other provinces not only in respect of questions of law but also questions of fact. I hope the minister will harken to this appeal.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good thing that the lawyers in this house are taking a look at the fine print in this bill. As a practical farmer, I find it is rather unfortunate that legislation of this kind, designed primarily to assist the farmer who through no fault of his own finds his product unsaleable because of pesticide residue, is so hemmed in whith details. The conditions laid down by the minister and the officials of his department will make it extremely difficult for the farmer to benefit from this legislation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This bill is made for farmers, not lawyers.


George Robson Muir: Then, I think it should be in simpler terms because farm people like
Pesticide Residue Contamination simple language. We like to have things spelled out and not left to regulations. The intent of the bill is good, but the denial to the farmers of the right to seek recourse from a decision of the minister, except by an assessor appointed by the minister whose decision is final, makes one wonder whether the whole intent of the bill is destroyed by its interference with the rights and privileges of a citizen to seek justice in a court of law.
Indeed, it does not seem to be simple justice that a farmer must explore almost every other avenue of compensation for crop loss before he can turn to the government for assistance. We might take, for example, a farmer who bought a farm in good faith from someone who obviously either had contaminated it himself or had allowed it to be contaminated by someone working for him before he sold it. Surely, in such a situation the minister would not expect the farmer to seek compensation from someone who has long since given up his interest in the property. This could cause years of anguish to the new owner by reason of prolonged court action. If the intent of the bill is to assist the farmer, would it not be in the best interests of the farmer and the general public that the farmer be assisted as much as possible? This would be especially true if the residue had been placed on his crop or on his land other than through his own negligence.
With these very brief words, may I conclude by saying I hope the minister will take a broader view of this legislation in order that it may be made not only workable but worth while.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate particularly with regard to clause 13(3) wherein it is stated that the decision of the assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to this part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court. I am quite sure this is not the minister's wording. The wording must have originated with the officials of the department. I am wondering why the minister, being a farmer, would have agreed to this wording. Under Canadian law there are very few acts in respect of which an appeal cannot be made to our courts. This is a principle of British justice to which the people of Canada are entitled. I understand there is one provision in connection with income tax which is contrary to the principles of British justice because according to it one is guilty before he goes to court and must prove his innocence. I do not think the
February 17. 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination minister wishes to impose such a provision upon the farmer. Therefore, I wonder why this provision is included in the bill.
There is another act with which I have been involved under which there is no right of appeal to the courts, although I believe there should be. I have in mind the Pension Act. We have courts to decide these questions. I question why the minister has included this clause in the bill, particularly when he has retained for himself under clause 5(2) the right to appeal to the courts where he deems it necessary. The minister may require, as a condition for the payment of any compensation to a farmer under this act, the consent of that farmer for the minister to pursue on his behalf any legal action against any manufacturer or persons referred to in paragraph (b) of subclause (1). I ask the minister whether he can explain to the farmers and the members of this house why he precludes the farmers from recourse to the courts while he wishes this right for himself. There is the provision in clause 15 to the effect that, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, the assessor may make such rules respecting the conduct of appeals and the procedure for the bringing of appeals as he deems necessary to enable him to discharge his duties under this act.
If the assessor is to appoint the judges, then it is conceivable there could be 200 sets of rules because I am informed there are over 200 judges in the Dominion of Canada. In the event that one judge differs from another which opinion would be applicable? I am quite sure this situation does arise in a number of cases, otherwise there would not be the safeguards there are under our judicial system. A similar situation would exist if all members of this house or all members of one party could not agree. When we have British justice in our courts, why do the officials deny the farmers of Canada their rights? I think this is a very dangerous piece of legislation; it just adds to the other dangers we have. If the bill is passed, we will be shirking our responsibility as members and shifting the onus to somebody else. We will, in fact be passing the buck to somebody else.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I would like to say something about the qualifications of the assessors, Mr. Speaker. The minister says they will all be judges. I agree with the two hon. members who preceded me; I do not think this is a task that 
should be imposed upon the judges of Canada. I am quite sure that our legal organizations would frown upon this type of legislation which places Canada's judges in the position where they could be charged with being adherents of political patronage. I do not blame the present government, because it could happen if we were in government- which will not be very long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You won't live that long.


John (Jack) McIntosh: It is quite easy to see that some hon. members opposite have not got their ears to the ground. I do not understand why the minister insists upon having part II included in the bill. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has already mentioned this point. It seems very devious to me that the minister will not give the farmers the right to appeal to the courts. The minister wants to retain this right unto himself. As I say, our judges will be put in a very bad position. Once a person is appointed to a judgeship, we assume that he is above political pressure. If our judges are asked to take on such a task as this, they will be subject to political pressure or political criticism. I do not think the minister wants to place our judges in this position.
I hope the minister will agree to withdraw this part of the bill. It is hypothetical whether any appeal cases will be brought before our courts. If the assessor is a good, qualified man, I doubt that the farmers will dispute his decision. However, as a precaution, and just in case a farmer does dispute the assessor's decision, I think that under our judicial system, under our just society as some hon. members say, the farmer should have the right to appeal to the courts. This is the part of the bill to which I object. In some of our acts, the accused or the defendant is not given the right of appeal to the courts. I say that we, as members of this house, are shirking our responsibility if we do not give our farmers the right to appeal in this instance.
I would therefore ask the minister to consider withdrawing clause 13(3) from the bill. I do not understand what advantage the minister will have by leaving the clause in the bill, except that it will give more power to some bureaucrats-and I think they have too much already.


Mr. Woolliams:: That is exactly what the-Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said.
February 17, 1969


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, why doesn't he practise what he preaches? I ask the minister to reconsider this clause of the bill. Unless he can come up with a good reason for the clause being in the bill, he should be prepared to withdraw it. The minister should allow the farmers the privileges for which he is asking in the bill.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak very briefly on this bill because there is one part of it with which I cannot agree. Also, I do not believe the farmers of this country agree with that part of the bill to which I take exception. I think we are all in favour of the principle of Bill C-155, entitled "An act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards."
That all sounds very good until you start reading the fine print. When you do, you find that if this bill is passed it will operate in such a way that if it is believed a farmer's crop has become contaminated, the minister may, and will, appoint an inspector to inspect the crop and see whether it has in truth become contaminated. If the inspector decides that it has become contaminated, he will advise the producer of the crop of the compensation the government will pay him for that crop. The farmer will not be allowed to move or sell his crop, but must destroy it. If the farmer agrees with the compensation suggested by the inspector, there is no problem.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That will be the situation in 99 per cent of the cases.


George Harris Hees: But if the farmer does not agree with the compensation that is suggested, and feels it is unfair-and this may easily be the situation in many cases-the government will appoint an assessor to judge the case. I should like to read clause 13 of the bill, which will apply in this situation:
Upon the hearing of an appeal brought pursuant to this part, the assessor may
(a)	confirm the decision of the minister,
(b)	subject to any maximum amount of compensation prescribed pursuant to this act and applicable to the loss in respect of which the appeal is brought, vary the decision of the minister, or
(c)	refer to matter back to the minister for such further action as the assessor may direct.
(2)	In any proceedings under this part costs may be awarded to or against the minister.
(3)	The decision of the assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to this part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
Pesticide Residue Contamination
That is the part to which I, on behalf of the farmers whom I represent, object. I think it is eminently unfair. This clause says that, in fact, the minister will be the investigator and the judge; there will be no appeal from the decision of the assessor. Let us remember that the assessor will be appointed by the minister. If the assessor, appointed by the minister, makes a recommendation for settlement with which the farmer concerned does not agree, there is, according to this bill, no appeal from that decision. Therefore, the government has the complete and final say in this regard. As has been said in the debate this evening, under British justice there is always an appeal.
I believe that in this case an appeal must be allowed. This is why I appeal to the minister. In fairness to the producers of this country whose crops may become contaminated, in cases where the assessor's decision does not meet with the approval or agreement of the farmer or producer-that is, if he thinks the decision is not fair and equitable-the farmer or producer should be given the right to appeal the decision to the courts and have the matter decided there. As far as I am aware, in every other case appeals may be lodged and decisions handed down in this way.


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


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped the minister would say something about the debate that has taken place on this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member that we are on third reading and the minister has no right to reply.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That may be true, Mr. Speaker, and I am quite appreciative of the new rules. I would like to say something about the new rules because they are the subject of my complaint. If the minister wanted to make a change now he could get unanimous consent of the house to do so. However, if the new rules are going to operate in this way, then we are fenced in. This is what really happens, with the greatest respect, and I do not want to go into that side of it. In answer to your direction, I want to say that we have first reading and second reading. Then, a bill goes to a standing committee.
February 17, 19691

Pesticide Residue Contamination We must remember that government members are going to approve these bills. Members in the opposition have a certain responsibility here-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have to remind the hon. member of the rule under which we are operating. I am also informed that the minister has already obtained unanimous consent and has replied. He has already spoken once more than he should under the rules. I am not disputing the point of order raised by the hon. member, but this having been said perhaps we can get on with the bill itself.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that has been raised I would draw Your Honour's attention to Hansard for February 12, page 5445 where an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) that clause 13(3) be deleted. A decision on that amendment was taken by the house as recorded at page 5447 of Hansard. I am not insisting that this be done but I am pointing out that a decision relating to clause 13(3) was taken by the house a few days ago, negativing a motion by a member to delete that subclause from the bill. It is certainly not within my competence to revive a matter that has been decided by the house.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is the very point I am going to make. Certainly, that is exactly what happens. The minister has just proven my point that government members stand up and approve of these things and under the new rules it is very difficult for the opposition to attack. Under the former rules, when a bill went to the committee of the whole house it could be attacked.
Some of us on this side of the house have a sense of responsibility:	I would ask the
minister to reconsider his position. Knowing him personally, and knowing his responsibility to the farmers, I know that he does not want to fence them in. Years ago farmers did not use the kind of chemicals that are now spread on plants. They used sawdust with a poison mix spread around the boundaries of their farms. Now, chemicals are sprayed on the grain itself.
Under this bill if an assessor is appointed and fixes compensation, there can be no appeal against his decision. Not too long ago I was pleased when I heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say that the cabinet was going to run the country and not the civil servants. I notice that the minister applauds. I point out to him that this legislation is giving the

power to civil servants, to men who may not want it, and this is directly contrary to the suggestion made by the Prime Minister.
Clause 13(3) says:
The decision of the Assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to this Part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
This clause takes away the civil rights of farmers and producers. Government supporters will have to tell the people in the rural areas that they approve of this. As one of my colleagues pointed out today, under this bill a person purchasing land would have to get a certificate saying that the land is clear. To me, that is carrying the law a long way. It is contrary to what we have done in the past. I know the minister has spoken twice in this debate but I would like to hear other members of the government tell us why this right of appeal is being taken away.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: It has not been taken away.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says it has not been taken away. It is very clear from clause 13(3) that it has. I was not a member of the standing committee. I cannot attend the meetings of all committees. That is one of the problems under the new rules. These new rules are now being tested here, and they are also being tested by public opinion. Clause 13(3) says that there shall be no appeal to any court. If that is not clear, and does not mean what I have said, then I cannot read English.
One of my colleagues asks what is the motive behind this. The motive is straight dictatorship, to take away the civil rights of the producers and the people of Canada.


George Harris Hees: In the new just society.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The trend of late has been for parliament to pass legislation giving the Governor in Council the right to pass orders in council, and the orders in council are so very far-reaching that really the law is made by bureaucrats and not by parliament. I am not criticizing members of the public service because if they are given the responsibility they must act as they see fit. But I am shocked that the minister introduces such legislation and tries to ram it through under the new rules.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not want to interrupt my colleague from Calgary North. There is something that Your Honour will have to take under consideration. It is the
February 17, 1969

point of order raised briefly by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) that there having been an amendment put forward at the reporting stage and it having been negatived, it is then impossible for members of the house on third reading to refer to the same principal and put forward an amendment with an instruction to refer the matter back to the committee.
I would put it to Your Honour that what the minister is arguing is completely false. First of all, an amendment can be put forward in the standing committee and negatived by that committee. It is then open to any member of the house, including a minister of the Crown, to put forward a similar amendment, and even in identical terms, at the report stage. There can then be debate and a decision taken by the house. I would put it to you that there is nothing in the new rules which would inhibit Your Honour from accepting discussion at third reading as we have, and as took place much earlier today in extenso, on this particular point.
Your Honour cannot prejudge the remarks of an hon. member because he may finish his remarks by moving an amendment, which is permissible under third reading, that the bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the standing committee with certain directions touching directly on the clause which had been subject of amendment at the report stage. So, I maintain that the point of order advanced by the minister in attempting, shall we say, to influence the debate or the remarks made by my colleague from Calgary North, was not in order. I may be arguing what is already understood, but I want to make the point perfectly clear that it is our view that we can move such amendments within the terms of reference for amendments on third reading, and that in leading up to such amendments remarks can be made dealing with the subject dealt with at the report stage.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it is only if Your Honour is going to make a ruling on that point that I want to take time to speak on it.


Mr. Speaker:: The point is that I have no intention of making a ruling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker. May I just state that I agree with the point made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and will so argue if the point of order
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act is raised seriously and Your Honour has to rule on it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-156, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture on Thursday, February 13, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.



PEST CONTROL

[Stage Direction]
REGULATION OF PRODUCTS USED IN CONTROL PROCEDURE-REPORT STAGE	.
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-157, to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture on Wednesday, February 12, 1969, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.



INCOME TAX ACT AND ESTATE TAX ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (page 5191).
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to the amendment, I want to put some emphasis on how it will affect the farmers of this nation and, I suppose, also small businesses. The small business man operates much the same way as the farmer in that he tries to gather together and hold enough capital to operate an enterprise on an individual or a family basis. I will not quote the percentages because I think they have been quoted adequately by the speakers who have preceded me, but in looking at the tax rates proposed in this bill it seems to me
February 17, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act that the amount which will be demanded in estate taxes from the family farm business will be such that it will be difficult for those farm businesses to continue.
Certainly, this proposed taxation measure is of real benefit to the wife, and so it should be. In the family farm business particularly, the wife has contributed substantially to whatever estate there is at the time of the husband's death. But the point that I am really concerned about is whether or not this type of farm can continue to exist on the Canadian scene. If we are not particularly concerned with who controls the farming resources, and particularly the land of this nation, perhaps we do not need to be concerned about the estate tax structure. But if we do have some ideas as to the type of farm we want, which I happen to have, then we do need to be concerned about the type of estate taxes we have, the manner in which they are applied and whether or not they will permit a certain type of farm structure to continue. The land resources of this nation, including livestock if you like, will be farmed whether they are farmed by a family farm type operation, which has been the practice until now, or whether they are operated by a corporate structure. Somebody will still produce corn, flax, rapeseed, wheat, soya bean, sugar beets and potatoes. But I happen to think that we will have a better structure if the ownership of our land resources is maintained under individual control. If individual control of the land is continued, I believe it will allow for more competition. I do not think there is a more competitive structure in the nation today than in the farm sector, unless it is in the fisheries, as has been pointed out by some members of the house. In the farm industry, there is a type of competition which our society finds desirable. If we want to continue this system we will have to have a tax structure which will enable this type of operation to continue.
The weakness of the estate tax which is proposed under the bill, and which also existed under the old act, is the fact that it is imposed at the very time of the greatest weakness in this type of business, namely, when it is being transferred from one generation to the next. This is the time when the government says: "We want a bite out of it".
I suspect this is also true of the small businesses, although I have no special knowledge in that area. At this time the generation that is leaving the farm is trying to take enough out of it to retire or to satisfy some other member or members of the family.
[Mr. Gleave.l

[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
At the same time, the son or the son-in-law who is taking over must find capital to replace whatever had been taken out by the father or the mother who had retired. What is to be done in cases like this? The government wants to raise money, and certainly it has to do so. But what is to be done in terms of preserving the structure of our farms? The recently appointed president of the Canada Grains Council says we should promote the commercial farm, not out of disregard for the litle farmers but out of regard for the industry as a whole. The commercial farmers, he says, will form the base of Canadian agriculture. I have a high regard for the president of the Canada Grains Council, Mr. Runciman of the United Grain Growers. I have known him for a number of years. The government must have a high regard for him, too, because they have just appointed him to what I am sure they consider to be a key post in the affairs of western Canada.
I would say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, that I am thinking in terms of the commercial structures which he himself has in mind in the range between $50,000 and $200,000, which represents the capitalization one finds in most of our operating farms in western Canada today: one should not collect any estate tax at all if it is intended that farms of this type should continue. When an estate reaches a figure over and above the optimum amount needed to run the size of farm the minister wants, the revenue department can probably collect estate tax without endangering the structure which is thought desirable. But up to that point, no estate tax should be collected. I say to the minister that this principle has in part been recognized already, since provision is made for deferring settlement for a certain period of time. This is permitted simply because the minister realizes that the period during which ownership changes is a time of greatest weakness in the structure. The people coming in cannot immediately pay the tax. For this reason, the government allows payment to be deferred over a period of so many years. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that during these years the occupant of a farm will be taking operating capital out of the undertaking in order to pay the tax which the government demands. During all this time his standard of living will be reduced and only a bare minimum will be spent on operating equipment.
February 17. 1969	COMMONS
In my opinion, we should collect no tax from a tenant as long as a farm stays in direct tenure within a family. If a son or a son-in-law takes over, do not collect any tax. Let it rest in abeyance, or do not levy it at all. Once a farm goes out of the tenure of a family, then collect all the tax that is due. You see, Mr. Speaker, if we want family farms to continue, if we want individual ownership of farms to continue, it will be necessary to develop a tax system which encourages their continuation. Otherwise, they will disappear.
The margin of return to a farmer-operator is simply not sufficient to allow for paying of estate tax and at the same time to maintain the operating capital that is needed. Figures can be found everywhere to support this contention. I shall not even bother to quote them because they can be obtained from so many sources, and have been published by so many economists. I say it is in the interests of the Canadian people to consider an approach of this kind. The Canadian people are getting the benefit of cheap food. An hour's work in the manufacturing industry today will buy more pork, or more beef or more bread than it used to buy. I put the figures on record during a previous debate, and I shall not repeat them now. The consumer is getting a good bargain and it is therefore in the interests of the Canadian people to see that the present type of farm structure continues. They are getting a bonus every year.
The arrangement I have suggested would also prove of advantage in deterring rapidly escalating land values. It would encourage a farmer to hold on to his land. If he placed it on the market he would immediately lose his advantage. The advantage to the operating farmer would be to continue operating his land from one generation to the next. Today, the advantage to the farmer lies in selling his land. We should be developing real social objectives as far as farming and agriculture are concerned. We ought to decide on the kind of farms we want, and then develop tax laws and estate tax laws in particular which will encourage farms of that kind to continue. I do not think anyone is wise enough to be able to say arbitrarily that a farm ought to be of this size, or that size, but we can determine broadly what we believe to be a desirable objective and then work out the kind of tax laws which would encourage farms of that type.
DEBATES	5621
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
The farmer is already in a poor bargaining position as compared with other sectors of society. He does not possess the bargaining power of the professional groups, or of large scale industry or of the labour unions. He is willing to go into the market place and bargain his capital and labour. I say: consider the value of this group of people to the economy and ask yourselves whether the type of taxation upon which you decide, the estate tax particularly, encourages them to continue.
Let me give the house an example. A man in my constituency wrote to me about a gift he had made to his son. I think he had six quarter sections of land. He wanted his son to continue on the farm with him, so he gave him a quarter section and placed a certain value on it. But the estate tax people came along and said the land was worth more. In the end, the farmer had to find about $400 in order to give his son a quarter section and get him started. I would have no objection, supposing he had given his son a few thousand dollars, to the estate tax collectors taking a certain share of it. I hold no brief for the withholding of tax on large amounts of money passed from father to son-possibly because I was not given any such amounts myself.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Someone in our group stated the proposition that if a young man or woman of decent education and reasonable intelligence received a windfall in the form _of so many thousand dollars, he or she should pay tax on it. I am not arguing for the individual but for a structure in our society that is of value. I am not taking a moral stand; I do not think morality has very much to do with this. But I do not think that if a farmer whose farming operation is not making him particularly rich decides to give his son a start in farming he should be asked to pay society for the privilege.
In the area where I live and farm young men are leaving the farms, not staying on the farms. It is good farming area, well developed with good sized farms. But unless we provide some incentive and make it worth while, these young men will not stay. We are insisting on burdening them with a load of debt so that they find themselves working for the next 10 to 20 years in order to pay interest at 8 or 9 per cent on 25 or 30 per cent of present farm values. If they have any brains they will say that the game is not

February 17, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act worth the candle. Therefore, I ask the minister to see whether he can persuade not only himself but those who advise him that the matters I have referred to this evening should receive some consideration.


Mr. Paul SI. Pierre (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, the two constants of mankind are supposed to be death and taxes. The minister has contrived to get them both in the one bill for our consideration tonight. Estate tax is what we call it, but what we are really dealing with here is a capital gains tax because an estate is capital; it is stored labour. It differs from other capital gains taxes only in the time of its collection. It is collected after the owner's death from his heirs. To my mind this should be one of the most fair forms of capital gains tax, and it is this broad statement that I should like to expand a little later in my remarks.
The bill itself, of course, is not simple. Very few things involving government or law are simple any more. I suppose we might as well face this complexity as one of the burdens of modern society; there is no point in our lamenting the fact. Some of us may look with some regret to days not long ago when there were simple wills. I can recall one in my riding of Coast Chilcotin which was written with a pencil on one sheet of store newspaper. A rancher left his ranch to his sons to be divided equally between them. The instructions on the sheet of paper were very simple. The eldest son was to draw the line dividing the ranch in half and the younger son was to have first choice of the halves. It worked very well.
Another example occurs to me and I recommend it for study to the minister's staff. This was the case of an Indian who had died leaving all his wordly goods to one of two sons. The will was to be decided in this way. These were the instructions. The two sons were to take their best saddle horses and there was to be a race. The son whose horse was last across the finish line would inherit the entire estate. You may be able to anticipate, Mr. Speaker, what happened: the two sons got on their horses but neither man would move from the starting line. Fortunately there was an old Indian in the village and they called on him to break the stalemate. He looked the situation over and gave some brief instructions. The race was won; one horse came in first, one came in last, and the estate was settled according to the will. The minister has such experts on his staff that I am not going to tell him what the solution was,

except that the old Indian solved the problem with two words. He was not a politician but a man very brief in speech.
In this bill as first presented there were provisions with which I strongly disagreed. The bill, in my opinion, did not reflect some of the realities of life that affect small businesses-farms, ranches, to name a few. I noticed that many of us made complaints about the bill. As a matter of fact, the other day the minister said that slightly more than 100 complaints from government members had been received, and as I recall it the opposition parties also contributed eight. So, members on all sides of the house were concerned about the bill. Speaking for myself and for several others, there were three points to which we took strong exception. One of these concerned the sudden burden placed upon small estates closely held, of which ranches and farms are a typical example. The sudden impact of even moderate estate taxes could be very damaging to such holdings.
It is true that even under the present act it is possible to arrange time payments. The minister says that only about 40 people in the last decade asked for such arrangements to be made and this makes me very doubtful that many people were aware of this provision. In any event, time payments should have been made a matter of right for estates of this nature, which are closely held and which may find it simply impossible to raise estate taxes quickly. The minister has now seen fit to change this section of the act and a five year period in which to make six payments is now to be permitted as a matter of right under the revised bill.
There was another objectionable feature to the minds of many of us, and it was this: Since there are major differences between this new estate tax and the present one, a great many people are going to have to rewrite their wills in order to adapt them to the new legislation. I congratulate the minister for bringing in the changes. They will permit executors, after August 31 next, to elect whether they wish to pay estate taxes under the new or old acts.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The third complaint many hon. members raised was that, in its original form, the bill would have imposed estate taxes on all estates over $20,000. The philosophy behind this part of the measure escapes me. We are told that estate taxes have two purposes, to
February 17. 1969	COMMONS
raise money for the government and to prevent the pyramiding of family wealth from generation to generation. That is all very fine, but how an estate worth $21,000, by any stretch of the imagination represents the foundation of a family's dynastic fortune, escapes me. I should be surprised if the money the government collects from estates of between $25,000 and $35,000 equals the amount spent on collection.
I commend the minister for changing his mind and for introducing a floor of $50,000, below which no estate will be taxed. I wish I could be satisfied with the $50,000 floor, but I cannot be. For many years the basic exemption level has been $50,000. For several years now we have been suffering from an inflation which has eroded the value of our dollar. This legislation ought to recognize that inflation has greatly diminished the value of our dollar. In large part, the dollar has lost its value because many levels of government for many years have indulged in irresponsible spending policies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul St. Pierre: Governments are responsible for the inflation from which we suffer. Although the minister has established $50,000 as the floor below which estate taxes will not be collected, I should have preferred to see a floor of $100,000 established. The present floor, however, is a vast improvement over the $20,000 floor.
There are, of course, some excellent features in the new legislation. The elimination of estate tax on estates passing from spouses to widows or widowers should strike most hon. members as eminently fair. If we accept the proposition that wives contribute to the accumulation of a family's capital wealth, surely it was wrong for the government to intervene previously and collect estate taxes on the death of one of the partners. Indeed, one wonders why that provision was retained so long in the old law. Possibly it represented a hangover from the Victorian idea and I hesitate to use the words, that women were inferior. That, I think, was a delusion to which later generations have not subscribed.
In the bill are new increased exemptions for minor children and for totally dependent invalid children. There is a new exemption of $10,000 for the adult child. Formerly, tax was levied with respect to such adult children.
I listened to several critics of the bill. Several suggested it should be withdrawn and
DEBATES	5623
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act studied again. I find their attitude difficult to understand. Surely, hardly any hon. member of the house will claim this bill is not a considerable improvement over the old legislation. It is much fairer.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and I have figures in my possession which support many of his contentions. The figures were produced by the British Columbia Department of Agriculture as a result of a selective survey of British Columbia ranches. They show how low are the earnings of ranches that many would consider extremely valuable. For instance, the survey has figures for ranches valued at between $50,000 and $100,000 and shows returns on capital for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967.


An hon. Member:: Those are not ranches.


Paul St. Pierre: The figures shown as returns on capital are -1.2 per cent, -0.4 per cent and -0.12 per cent respectively. On ranches valued over $100,000 and under $180,000-


Mr. Benjamin:: What is your yardstick for value?


Paul St. Pierre: That is the point I am coming to. Ranches valued at over $100,000 in the three years I have referred to made a profit on capital of 1.2 per cent, then 1.5 per cent and then 2.28 per cent. For ranches valued at $180,000 there is no calculation for 1965. The
1966	profit is shown as 4.1 per cent and the
1967	profit as 5.06 per cent.


An hon. Member:: And how much of that was deeded?


Paul St. Pierre: It is clear that if any rancher had sold his ranch at its valued price and invested the money in government bonds, surely one of our safest investments, which pay 6.5 per cent or more he could have drawn an income at no risk to himself, without having to do any work, much greater than the annual income he has been earning for the last several years.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: But they are private enterprisers, are they not?


Paul St. Pierre: Most ranchers are private enterprises. They believe in private enterprise; but then so do most people, I find.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why do ranchers not sell their ranches, then?
February 17, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


Paul St. Pierre: Because they like ranching, and because they are more optimistic than are hon. members of the N.D.P. They believe better days are ahead.


William Arnold Peters: The last few weeks have done nothing to foster that optimism.


Paul St. Pierre: I should like to show why a ranch valued at $100,000 ostensibly should return only $1,200, $1,500 or $2,280 as profit on invested capital. The answer lies in the fact that the figures respecting value are entirely illusory. The ranches in question are not worth $100,000. What has happened is that some fortunate rancher has recently sold his ranch at a totally inflated price, and other ranchers near him are listed as being equally valuable. That value figure has no basis in reality. It is a figure on a piece of paper. The man who collects estate taxes refers to the figure on that piece of paper in his calculations, to the misfortunate of many ranchers. That is why I was particularly interested in the comments of the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar. He spoke of farms that were approximately as valuable as the ranches I have mentioned. From his remarks, I judge that farmers in his area find themselves in the same sort of situation as ranchers in my area.
I now wish to speak about the new estate tax being applied to a $100,000 estate. I wish to take the case in which the tax bears most heavily, the case where the estate is left outright by a widower to one son, and not to two or three. Under the present law that son will pay $10,200 in estate tax. Under the proposed law he would pay $13,200, an increase of $3,000, which is considerable and which threatens the existence of the family farm.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Paul St. Pierre: However, if this $3,000 increase is paid out over five years, that will mean that $600 a year extra per year will be paid. This is considerably less than some of the gloom and doom people have suggested would have to be paid. I doubt that many hundred thousand dollar ranches will go under for the sake of a six hundred dollar per year payment. A point was raised by a member of the Ralliement Creditiste. It is a different philosophic question but one, with which I think we should deal. The province of Alberta has already taken a stand on this

matter. The question is, does the state have a proper right to collect estate taxes?
Estates are capital. They are savings and profit put aside by men who during their lifetime paid a tax on their incomes. Is it right for the state to take a second bite of the fruit of that man's labour when he dies? The hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Dumont) summed up the position of his party at page 5192 of Hansard. I quote:
Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to point out to the Minister of Finance that we, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are opposed to any tax at all in Canada, and that the very fact of levying a tax on private estates discourages private enterprise. That is why we say that the Minister of Finance should seek another formula.
It seems the state not only has the right to impose estate taxes, but in my opinion it has a duty. The alternative is very clear. Unless estate taxes are used to prevent the pyramiding of family wealth, then it must follow we are going to move increasingly into a hereditary aristocracy of wealth in this country. It will not be basically from a titled aristocracy. It will gain power in the nation's political affairs by virtue of birth rather than by virtue of individual worth. I am convinced that this or any other form of class system is bad for Canada.
Canada has not suffered from the lack of a Rockefeller or Dupont family, and I am very sure we have not suffered from the lack of the Krupp family of Germany. I ask those members of the Ralliement Creditiste who oppose this bill on the basic principle that estate taxes are wrong if they are prepared to add to the power which already exists in an aristocracy of wealth in this nation. If so, why not go the next logical step and have hereditary lords in this country? Perhaps they would prefer to have the Senate seats hereditary. I cannot be convinced this would be good for Canada.
In closing, Mr. Speaker I would say this is generally good legislation for Canada. The original weak points have been largely eliminated. It has been vastly improved and is more just than the present estate tax legislation. For these reasons, I have no hesitation in supporting it.



GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I have the consent of the
February 17, 1969

house for a moment to revert to motions to make a procedural change which I think is generally agreeable to the house?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been certain discussions, Mr. Speaker, about the government reorganization bill which was introduced on first reading today. I think there is general agreement it would be preferable to deal with the bill in committee of the whole, rather than refer it to any standing committee. It has been suggested, pursuant to standing order 74 (2), that it would be necessary to make a special order of the house in this regard. Without prejudice to any views or debate which may take place on the interpretation of that order, I would like to propose the following order to deal with the reorganization bill:
That an order be made, that upon second reading of the bill entitled "An act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters relating or incidental thereto" the said bill stand referred to the committee of the whole house.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We are in
agreement with the purport of the order but I wish to register a strong objection to the interpretation being placed on standing order 74(2). The rules were designed to work but at the present time the interpretation is not permitting them to work. Before going on the order paper, every order will have to be designated as to which committee it will go. It is not the design of this standing order that a bill shall be left in the house after it has been viewed and the house, as a result of consultation, shall decide to which committee it will go. It is not the purpose of the rule that the posting shall include to which committee it will go.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for the second time tonight I shall resist the temptation to make remarks on a point of order. May I simply say we agree to the procedure being asked for this evening. Unlike my immediate friend, I see nothing wrong with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act INCOME TAX ACT AND ESTATE TAX ACT
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson for the second reading and reference to a Committee of the Whole of Bill C-165, to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (page 5191).
John (Jack) McIntosh: I may say at the outset, that this bill has been misnamed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). As one prominent Canadian businessman has suggested, it should be entitled a bill for the distribution of private property. I would go further than that. I believe this bill should be known simply as the liquidation bill, because if these infamous proposals of the minister become law they will surely lead to the liquidation of a large group of ordinary Canadians who believe in individual enterprise, just as Joseph Stalin's purge did in the Soviet Union 35 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I hear some comments from the other side of the house. After listening to one of their members speak a few moments ago, and judging by their actions in the house tonight, they are complimenting what he said. I want to refer to an article written by the hon. member's colleague. I understand he is an ex-journalist. Not long ago an article appeared in one of the local papers and the question was asked-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote the article?


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am not quite sure. The author was Pat Carney. I think this author was very favourable to the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: I didn't think she was.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) McIntosh: I understand it is an F.P. publication. The member was asked by this staff reporter:
What do you think of Finance Minister Benson's proposals?
The hon. member's reply was:
"I just don't buy them," said St. Pierre. He nicked up a sheet listing the assets and returns of some 500 ranches in 1967. They show an average return on capital invested of 0.85 per cent.
February 17, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act
That is not the story he was trying to tell us in this house tonight. But he also added at that time-


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker,-


@Acting Speaker: Order. The hon. member for Coast Chilcotin on a point of order.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear your remark.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Coast Chilcotin on a point of order.


Paul St. Pierre: I am asking the hon. member if he will permit a question.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Yes.


Paul St. Pierre: Does the hon. member know whether those remarks were made before or after the changes made in the bill by the minister?


John (Jack) McIntosh: It doesn't matter whether they were made before or after.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Well, to me it doesn't matter. If you want to listen to the hon. member he can tell you why he changed his mind. He certainly did not tell us tonight. So far as I am concerned, the only change the minister made in the bill since he introduced it last October resulted from the pressure of you backbenchers opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Particularly you backbenchers from urban areas. It seems odd that your rural members were not clapping. You told the Minister that if he allowed the bill to go through as he introduced it in October, 1968, you would not be back here next time.


Edgar John Benson: Sheer nonsense.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister knows that, and I know it.


An hon. Member:: We are all united.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Good. The minister introduced two amendments. By the first, he extended the term of payment. The main one out of which backbenchers opposite got such a kick was the one raising the exemption ceiling to $50,000. He said that no estate of $50,000 or under would be taxed. Had he left the ceiling at $20,000 every householder in every


city in the country would have been taxed. This is a discriminatory type of legislation. Why does he tax some who have an estate of $51,000 to the tune of $31,000 when those who have a $50,000 estate are not taxed at all? If a person has an estate of $51,000 he is taxable on $31,000 of that. The minister will not deny that.


Edgar John Benson: Not more than $500.


John (Jack) McIntosh: I have not come to that point yet. There are lots of things about this bill that backbenchers opposite do not know, and that the minister will have to explain to them. This is a very discriminatory tax, and I think we can prove it. At least out west, we can certainly prove it. That is why I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) say what he did tonight about his ranchers. However, he talked out of the other side of his mouth to these reporters. On that occasion he said:
"I'm worried that the estate tax is going to accelerate the sale of these ranches to foreigners.
He wasn't worried tonight.
People just won't have the money to pay the estate taxes. But nobody here will concede this."
He accepted that fact tonight. He said that this is not an estate tax, it is a capital gains tax. I am quite sure he will have a lot of difficulty telling the ranchers in his riding that they have not paid income tax on every cent they have invested in their ranches. The same thing applies to small businesses. He will have a difficult time telling the owners of small businesses that they have not paid income tax on their assets. The hon. member went to great lengths to explain statistics:
"What nobody here in Ottawa seems to understand is that a $100,000 or $200,000 ranch can be a very marginal operation in the west."
This statement is quite true.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres has raised a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. member to identify the paper from which he is quoting. I did not hear his answer very well the last time. I would like to know from which paper he is quoting now.
February 17, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Barnyard News, if that helps, of the 32nd of December.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You asked for it. Some time ago, in a speech to a gathering of Liberals in London, the Minister of Finance said he was aware that a special burden had been imposed on the owners of family farms and on the owners of small businesses. Not long afterwards I asked him a question in this house to find out what he meant by "special burden", and why he imposed it on farmers, on small ranchers and on small businessmen. There must be a reason for it. I am sure it is not an economic reason. I hope he will explain it later.
I was also interested tonight in the statement made on behalf of the New Democratic party. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) said that he was not arguing for the individual when he stated that these farms should be left intact. This is not the story we hear from them out west. He went on to speak very much like a Conservative member. Maybe we have been getting through to him.


Edgar John Benson: Birds of a feather.


John (Jack) McIntosh: When he was speaking the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) made the remark that the N.D.P. have lost their best base of operations, and that Trudeau and his Liberals have taken over.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I am flattered that I caught you both in the same net.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You did not catch us in your net. You are beginning to see the light since you came down here. These tax proposals sound the death knell of the economic family unit in this country whether that unit be a farm, a construction company or a corner grocery store.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Are you still quoting?


John (Jack) McIntosh: If you want to speak you had better go back to your seat. You haven't learned the rules yet. What is the hon. member's constituency?


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Don't get mixed up.


John (Jack) McIntosh: You should go back to your seat if you want to speak in this house.
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: I am sorry if I disturbed you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek has the floor.


John (Jack) McIntosh: As I said, Mr. Speaker, the minister's tax proposals sound the death knell of the family farm in this country, and also of the small construction company, and of the corner grocery store.


An hon. Member:: And the Conservative party?


John (Jack) McIntosh: That remains to be seen. When the minister first announced these changes back on October 22, 1968, he so swaddled them in candy floss that many of us were misled into believing that they were really great tax concessions, an improvement, a reform. We admit this. At that time, the minister assured us he was not bringing in these changes simply to raise more revenue. He just wanted to make some modest changes that would correct injustices but still yield about the same amount of revenue for the federal treasury.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
On October 22 the minister said, as reported at page 1685 of Hansard:
I propose that the loss of revenue arising from this long awaited reform of the exemption structure be made up by raising the rates on the rest of the estate-
It is difficult to predict accurately the revenue effects of changes in estate taxes but I have aimed at maintaining the same total over-all revenue-
In other words, the minister did not intend this measure as a revenue-producing measure but rather as a measure to correct inequity and injustice which he believed existed in the old act. I said "he believed" but I am not quite sure what he believed. If my figures are correct, the minister could not possibly have brought forward these proposals as an economic measure. The revenue to which he referred amounts to a mere pittance by today's standards of federal budgeting. In comparison with total federal revenue, the proportion of that revenue raised by estate and gift taxation is equally small.
In his budget speech the minister forecast total budgetary revenues amounting to between $10 billion and $11 billion, and revenue from estate taxes amounting to $110 million. According to my calculation, the estate taxes provide just a shade over one per cent of total revenue, a rate borne out over the
February 17, 1969

Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act past five years according to budget paper figures. But that is not the end of the story. We must remember that 75 per cent of the revenue collected federally by estate taxation goes to the provinces. So, the figure the minister is actually concerned with, as the federal minister charged with running the federal government shop, is only somewhere in the neighbourhood of $30 million. An amount of $30 million, in a budget with a total revenues of more than $10 billion, is not an item which should cause the minister the concern, work and argument already involved in trying to foist this tax upon the Canadian taxpayer.
It is interesting that, in respect of the provinces, in his speech the minister said:
We recognize the special interest of the provinces in this field of taxation but believe that parliament should keep a share in it for its indirect benefits in the enforcing of the Income Tax Act as well as its direct benefits in revenue.
Recognizing the particular interest of the provinces in this field, it is strange the minister did not consult them before making such a drastic change; or perhaps he did and did not like what he heard from them. According to the Toronto Telegram of December 18, Saskatchewan's Premier Thatcher said:
We made the strongest possible representations to Ottawa not to proceed with these changes.
Mr. Thatcher then went on to say that his government would bring in legislation to rebate to the people concerned the 75 per cent of estate tax revenue received from Ottawa. This has already been done in the province of Alberta. There is a strong probability that it will be done in the province of Manitoba. Other provinces, in recent years, have shown every indication of getting out of this unpalatable field of taxation. But the minister and his colleagues in the cabinet cling ghoulishly to death duties as a source of revenue, or so they say. So, we come back once again to the big question mark; why the radical changes in the estate and gift tax setup? This is what the people are asking.


Edgar John Benson: Ask the widows.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The minister has been evasive about this particular budget proposal. He slid past the various points and implications in respect of the changes in his budget speech, preferring to make much of the concession to the spouse of a deceased which he just mentioned a moment ago. Since that time in his

public statements, he has been equally obscure and on occasion has deliberately muddied the water by referring to examples culled from past experience rather than by giving examples based on application of the new tax regulations.


Edgar John Benson: Oh, no.


John (Jack) McIntosh: This is what the people of Canada want to know. On January 16 before an audience of Liberals in London, Ontario, we find the minister again muddying the waters. At that time he said the amount of $200 million, not the 110 million of his budget speech, was vital to his budget and that if it was not forthcoming he would have to put another one per cent on the so-called social development tax. In one breath the income is vital and in the next it is negligible except to correct an inequity.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) on a point of order.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I have always been told members should not read their speeches. I wonder whether the hon. member is reading from the same-


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


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member who interrupted, may I say that perhaps he does not have any manners but he certainly has no political sense. Many of us know that he sat for years as an Independent member because no party would have him. I am surprised that the Liberals have taken him now.
In the same speech, the minister said that the forced sale of a farm or family business had seldom occurred in connection with payment of estate taxes. This may well be true, but this was in the past. It was before the Benson thumbscrew was applied, as I believe it is being applied now. Again, at the same meeting the minister said:
I should remind you that the vast majority of Canadians have not, and will not now, pay any estate tax.
This certainly may be true, now that they have raised the exemption to $50,000, for certain classes of people only. This is class, or discriminatory, legislation and cannot do justice to all Canadians. It is directed toward the urban centres and is introduced for a political purpose. What the minister neglected to explain was that his new regulations dropped the floor for taxable estates down to $20,000.
February 17, 1969

This is still the floor. Who is he trying to kid by saying that the vast majority of Canadians will not now be taxable? The minister has steadfastly refused to explain the real purpose of this tax. On the basis of his own statements and his own figures it cannot be an economic measure. I presume even this government would not be fatuous enough to bring in a piece of legislation without any purpose whatever. If, then, we presume the proposals to have a purpose-and we have seen that this purpose cannot be justified in economic terms-we are driven to the conclusion that this measure is not indeed an economic measure but a social measure. We ask why. Maybe the New Democratic party members should ask why. It is my belief that it is a social measure and a social measure of a revolutionary kind.
I believe that if this parliament adopts these tax and gift tax resolutions, Canada will see the disappearance within a short time of that great segment of her people who still seek to live by individual initiative and individual enterprise. I am not alone in this belief. A host of newspaper editorial writers, commentators and tax experts have made the same prediction. Premier Thatcher said this "outrageous" measure meant the "end of the family farm". We in western Canada believe that. The members of the N.D.P. party in western Canada believe that. They pleaded with the minister not to impose this tax.
Mr. William Purdy, president of the Canadian Construction Association, was reported in the Ottawa Journal of January 22 as saying that the estate tax as proposed "will make it virtually impossible for family-owned construction firms to be passed on to the next generation". He pointed out that of 17,000 construction companies in Canada fewer than 200 were public companies, and that family firms did more than 90 per cent of the annual construction business in Canada. In an article generally favourable to the minister and the minister's works, Pat Carney wrote in the Ottawa Journal of January 21:
-the children will pay for mom's exemption-
At another point this article reads:
-the bugs in the new system centre around the fact that the happy family unit envisaged by Benson may not reflect the facts of life.
e (9:50 p.m.)
Make no mistake about it, this powerful weapon for social change is aimed directly at a whole class and there will be few, if any, family economic units that it will miss.
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Does the hon. member believe in equality of opportunity, and if so, would he not agree that all estates, other than those left to one's spouse, should perhaps in terms of equity be taxed at the 100 per cent level?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. That is the Regina manifesto.


John (Jack) McIntosh: No, Mr. Speaker. If one wants to get into an argument about taxation, I believe that the fairest method of taxation is income tax. There may be some branches of that tax which go too far. But that certainly does not apply to this type of taxation. The members of the party to which the hon. member belongs do not believe in what he has said, though they may spout it from time to time on the election platform. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar rose tonight and bemoaned the fact that this government was trying to tax the people he represents. This is where the shoe pinches. You N.D.P.'ers preach one thing and practice another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: The Saint John Telegraph-Journal of December 4 points out editorially:
With today's less valuable dollar, the reduction- down to a floor of $20,000-will extend the tax to almost anyone who has a small home and a modest insurance program, or a store or a business, or virtually any farm capable of providing even a simple living.
As hon. members know, December 4 was before the minister brought in this $50,000 gimmick to pacify his backbenchers. This was the purpose of it. I am sure the minister does not believe this is fair taxation. The social implications of this measure, the necessity of gathering even the smallest of independent Canadian fish in the net, explains the otherwise inexplicable matter of lowering the level at which an estate becomes taxable. I do not know how the minister decided on this tax. In western Canada, as a Liberal member said a few moments ago, we have seen farmers leave farms valued at $100,000. Some of those estates valued at more than $100,000 may have been left because of climatic conditions or other circumstances; so how can you assess an estate at $100,000, when it has no liquid assets? There has to be some other formula arrived at.
This type of social regimentation is in the Liberal tradition. This is the type of socialistic state planning of my hon. friends in the N.D.P., which the former prime minister
February 17, 1969
5830	COMMONS
Income Tax Act and Estate Tax Act bought by the package from one of his advisers; I think it was Tom Kent. This is the type of Liberal, bureaucratic control about which we heard something a short time ago when we were dealing with the agricultural bill. It is the type of Liberal, bureaucratic control sought by the erstwhile minister of national health and welfare when he brought in social security cards and social security numbers. This was done for a purpose; it is all part of the over-all picture.
To the Liberal ministerial mind, to the minds of the mandarins of the civil service, to the minds of the army of soulless Ottawa bureaucrats, no Canadian must be allowed to stand in the way of state planning, state guidance and state administration. The aim is to render every Canadian capable of being controlled by a central computer. This is why we have numbers. Therefore, the ordinary Canadian must be registered, concentrated, made subject to control and allowed no leeway for individual enterprise or individual initiative. That is the aim of this measure; and it is an aim that will be achieved in a frighteningly few years if this type of measure passes the house.
The same sort of group of small, independently minded citizens stood in the way of the Soviet state machine in the early thirties. Hon. members opposite laughed a few moments ago when I mentioned the Soviet regime of the early thirties. Stalin's solution was collectivism, transportation or murder. We are softer and more subtle. But the end result will be the same, the death of a class. I referred to this earlier.
The hallmark of Liberal legislation has always been its absence of humanity. Liberal ministers and senior civil servants have over the years become almost indistinguishable. They have never considered Canadian citizens as human as human beings but only as economic and social units. To realize this, one has only to recall the recommendations made some years ago by the high priest of Liberal theorists, Walter Gordon, when he sought to solve the problems of Cape Breton. His solution was simple, move the people to Upper Canada.
The same sort of philosophy is apparent today. One has but to examine the government's attitude to farmers both east and west to realize the callous disregard they have for people and their obsession with the abstract and the theoretical. One excellent example of this is their present approach to the hard-hit east coast fishing industry. We heard about


this problem just a few days ago. What was the government's answer to the plea to save this basic Canadian industry? The Liberals' answer was: Let it die. My colleagues from Newfoundland will verify this fact. The answer of the government was: Let it go by default, and put the people on some form of government subsistence. This is the Liberals' answer to these problems.
The Liberals say: Don't bother about things like human dignity or a man's desire to fend for himself and his family. It is much easier from a social planner's point of view to have everyone's name on a list, numbered and carded for a computer. It is more efficient to issue a series of identical cheques at regular intervals than to find ways of assisting people to look after themselves and to compete with their fellows on an equal footing.
The same sort of soulless, technological approach lies behind the minister's estate tax proposals. Family economic units are a nuisance. Scattered groups of independently-minded Canadians are a nuisance. They foul up the bureaucrats and are not adaptable to smooth, business-machine processing. The attitude of the Liberal party is: Get rid of them, wipe them out, regiment them along with their brothers in the huge, industrialized, urban centres.
I realize that these measures will hit the various pockets of individual enterprise left in urban centres just as hard as they will hit Canada's agricultural community, but at the moment my chief concern is with the impact they will have on rural Canada. To my mind, these tax proposals which set out new tax minimums and higher accelerated rates of taxation must be assessed as part of the whole system of applying federal estate taxes. They are bad enough of themselves, but when applied on valuation figures arbitrarily set by the taxing authority, with an accompanying demand for quick payment they could prove disastrous.
We all know something of the punitive and unrealistic figures arrived a by federal government evaluators. Not only do they seldom take cognizance of local market conditions and local valuation practice, but they take no recognition whatsoever of the low points in regional economic cycles such as we had two years ago in western Canada and again last year. In western Canada, the past season and the general condition of the world market for agricultural produce almost guarantee that anyone selling a farm there today will have to do so at a ruinous price, a
February 17, 1969

sacrifice-if indeed it can be sold at all. Judging by past practice, the federal estate tax valuation figures will take no notice of these conditions and that could mean the extinction of many rural enterprises.
I, for one, do not accept at face value the minister's bland assurances that no Canadian heir will suffer under these new proposals. If they are to be as he has said, if they are to be applied as he has said, then common sense indicates that many, many new taxpayers will be gathered into his tax net and many, many Canadians will be subject to an unjust and confiscatory tax bite.
Many of the criticisms that can be made about this legislation have been made, and well made, by previous speakers. Heaven alone knows, there is enough room for an army of critics here. However, I do not want to labour my opposition to this measure much longer. There is only one further point I wish to make. It concerns the warning given in the introduction of the new tax proposals of very ominous things to come. I believe it is fair to say that the minister's proposals are simply feelers for more sweeping tax "reforms" to come; a trial balloon, a toe in the water. If this be so, it is my conviction that the minister's manner of introducing so-called reforms is entirely unsuitable, and that he is the last person to handle such a monumental task.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much that I have to interrupt the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the principle that I wish to discuss on the adjournment debate has to do with the availability of government information. The particular issue is that in these days when government is becoming more and more sophisticated and many studies from outside sources will have to be called for it is important to parliament that the results of
DEBATES	5631
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion these studies be made available to us. One of the examples that comes to mind is the rather famous case of the Winnipeg overhaul base. As the member for Fundy-Royal, I have not a clue as to whether the overhaul base should be in Winnipeg or Montreal, and it does not really matter to me in which spot it is. In trying to assess the proper location for this site, the government called for an independent study by management consultants which produced what is known as the Thompson report. The difficulty is that the results of this report were never made available to the very people who were expected to pass judgment on the government's decision to phase out the base. Just as such a situation took place in Winnipeg, so too did it take place in almost every area. In fact what led me to this question is the fact that a great deal more reliance is going to be placed by the government on outside experts to give the government the benefit of their information. I, myself, prefer the system in Sweden which has worked very well for some decades where all information, unless it has to do with the fundamental issue of the safety and security of the state, is a matter of public record. I think it is known by text writers on the subject as the goldfish bowl principle, which is a rather descriptive term to use. In Sweden any information from reports or studies is automatically published, unless the safety of the state is involved.
I want to have the assurance of the administration that, if they cannot go as far as the Swedish reform, at least if studies are asked for by experts independent of the government the results of such studies will be made available to parliament.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I apologise for the tardiness. I understood that I was to answer a question by the second speaker on the list. Unfortunately, I only had the benefit of rereading the initial question asked by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) and I assume he has reiterated his position.
Generally speaking, reports asked for by the government are commissioned on one of two main bases: Either with a view to publication-that is being made public-or with a view to non-nublication. There are a number of instances in which investigations are sought, in which proposals are asked for or information is sought, which it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
February 17, 1969
5632	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Further, there are a number of people, experts of one kind or another from whom advice is sought on a confidential basis and it has been found that these people are prepared to be more frank in expressing their views and opinions when they know that the advice is private rather than to be made public. As a consequence of this, in each case an initial determination is made as to whether the report or the investigation commissioned is for purposes of publication or for the internal use of the government.
On this basis, reports are made public either by mass publication or by tabling in the house in response to a request, if there is one, or through release. An example of the kind of report which was prepared with a view to publication is the recent report of the task force on housing. On the other hand, the report of the commission which inquired into security questions was not prepared with a view to publication as such and consequently it will not be published in its original form.
I think the hon. gentleman will understand that there are basically two categories, and that failure to publish is not motivated by a desire to withhold information from the public domain, but by a wish to secure the best possible range of opinions and views from the person or persons commissioned to carry out the survey or inquiry and to make recommendations.



VETERANS AFFAIRS-FEASABILITY STUDY OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME

Max Saltsman: First, I
should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in appearing tonight to reply to the question I raised the other day concerning the feasibility of a guaranteed annual income for veterans. I raised this question particularly since the committee on Veterans Affairs is to examine the Woods report, at which time it will deal with benefits to veterans and the situation facing them at this time.
The idea of a guaranteed annual income is one which is increasingly advocated nowadays. Strangely enough it seems to be supported by both right wing and left wing elements in our society. It is supported by the right wing because its administrative ease is attractive and because of a desire to co-ordinate welfare programs which have become an administrative hodge-podge. We on the left regard it as a simple, elementary form of justice for those who are unable to take care of themselves for whatever reason, or who
[Mr. Drury.)

have been left behind in the competitive rat race of our society.
Thus, both from an administrative point of view and from a humanitarian point of view the idea of a guaranteed annual income is one which in my opinion will become a feature of every western society. I hope we can introduce it for our veterans and in particular for veterans of the first world war. The tragedy of the situation might be this-that the idea of a guaranteed income will be accepted, but accepted too late to be of assistance to veterans of the first world war, and, perhaps, of the second world war also. I suggest its application to veterans at this point not because I believe veterans should, in this context, be singled out for special treatment, but because if a guaranteed annual income is brought in it is likely to be brought in by stages. The first stage would be either an income for everyone at a very low level, or an income at a higher level for specific groups. In looking over the statistics and information relating to veterans in this country, it seems to me we could probably implement such a program without its being too heavy a cost at the moment, giving us the chance to make a start on a guaranteed annual income for everybody.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
In the evidence given before the committee it was pointed out that at least 25 to 30 per cent of all veterans in the first world war are now receiving one kind of assistance or another from the department. That figure is quite close to half our first world war veterans. Since we are already bearing the cost in large measure, it seems to me it would be far preferable to extend the guaranteed annual income if only to ensure that some veterans who cannot qualify now would qualify under such program.
Our present legislation is helpful. I think we in Canada can be reasonably pleased at having legislation that is much better than legislation of some other countries in terms of looking after our veterans. But this is not to say that the legislation cannot be improved or that there are not veterans who are suffering unduly at this time.
Recently all members of the house have been receiving letters from Dieppe veterans. The situation was put rather well in a letter I received from one of my constituents. He said:
After being liberated we were so elated with the thought of freedom that upon being discharged we did not submit all of our physical complaints
February 17, 1969	COMMONS
as we thought this would delay matters. I hope you can visualize the situation. Now that we are older, these seemingly trivial aches and pains have turned into serious complaints-a direct result, we believe, of our incarceration. When we seek medical attention we are told, "Sorry there is nothing showing on your record".
That is one of the great defects, if not the major defect, of the present legislation. Either because some veterans were not aware of disabilities they might have had or because they were anxious to leave the service for one reason or another, they were not able to establish a claim. Later on when their problems developed it became very difficult for the department to ascertain whether these problems were attributable to war service. I imagine it is a very difficult situation for the people who administer the act.
I feel quite sympathetic to the Dieppe veterans. I have always felt that in some ways they got a terribly raw deal. I was never convinced that the raid was essential, and I sometimes wonder to what extent it was a deliberate sacrifice on the part of the military in order to quieten the cry for a second front. However, I am pleased that the minister is in the house, and I hope he has had a chance to examine the question I posed to him and that he will provide an answer to the question.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) for his remarks on behalf of the veterans of Canada, especially his comments about the feasibility of a guaranteed income for veterans. As he knows, the Woods report which will be referred to the House of Commons committee on veterans affairs deals with disability pensions and with the Canadian Pension Commission. These matters will, of course, be
DEBATES	5633
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion coming up for study at that time, and I do not wish to anticipate the debate.
Perhaps the hon. member knows, if he does not, then this is an occasion for me to underline the fact, that many if not most of our veterans at the present time do enjoy a guaranteed annual income. Provision for that guarantee is made in the War Veterans Allowance Act which has been in existence since 1930. Of course, I should point out that that act does not apply to most veterans, but only to those who are in dire need. Fortunately, the great majority of the veterans in this country are in no need of having their income supplemented. They are doing very well on their own in our economy. Perhaps the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) will be interested to know that a quarter of all family heads in Canada earning between $4,000 and $5,000, the average income, are veterans. In fact, more than a quarter are veterans. The hon. member may be surprised to learn that in the higher income levels the percentage of veterans earning those incomes increases. Of those earning $10,000 a year, more than 50 per cent are veterans. So, it is with pride that we underline the fact that most of our veterans have adjusted to our society very well and are doing very well on their own.
However, in the case of veterans who cannot find employment in the market perhaps because of disability for which they are receiving pension, the War Veterans Allowance Act will apply. They may receive slightly over $4,000 in income.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.17 p.m.

Tuesday, February 18, 1969