1969-02-12

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has agreed to the amendment made by the House of Commons to Bill S-4, an act respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals, without any amendment.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of standing committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Gaston Clermont.
[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Beer.
[Editor's Note: For Reports of Committees above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings]

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

Mr. Caouelte: 1.	On what date did construction of the Quebec Bridge begin?
2.	What was the original cost of this bridge?
3.	What amount of interest has been paid to date?
4.	What balance remains to be paid?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1.	Construction of the first bridge began in the late 1800's. In 1907 a part of the bridge under construction collapsed. Subsequently, on April 9, 1910, a contract was awarded by the Federal Government for construction of the substructure of a new bridge. Erection of
the superstructure began in 1913 and proceeded until a further mishap on September 11, 1916. Work was then immediately commenced on a new span and the bridge was opened for regular rail traffic on December 3, 1917. Construction of the bridge was finally completed and accepted by the government on August 21, 1918.
2.	Total investment carried in accounts of Canadian Government Railways as shown in Public Accounts of Canada: $21,706,664.49.
3.	and 4. Nil.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRESS RELEASES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Does the Department of Justice issue documents which are of the nature of press releases, press communiques, news releases or the like and, if so, how many such documents have been issued since July 1, 1968?
2.	What has been the cost of (a) printing headings or cover sheets (b) typing the stencils (c) mimeographing or other form of duplicating (d) collating and stapling (e) addressing and mailing the said documents?
3.	With respect to the paper used for the said documents, what is (a) its quality (b) the quantity used and the cost thereof?
4.	What is the estimate of the number of manhours consumed in the preparation, production and distribution of such documents?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice);: 1.	Yes, eleven.
2.	(a) Approximately $60; (b) Typing is done by Minister's staff, no additional discernible cost; (c) Mimeographing, approximately $45; (d) None; (e) $108, being the cost of envelopes.
3.	(a) No. 7 Sulphite White Bond 16 lb;
(b)	20,000 sheets at a cost of approximately $49.
4.	Approximately eight hours.


THOMAS GLENN JOLLEY-STATUS ON ADMISSION
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Was Thomas Glenn Jolley, aged 24, a citizen of the United States of America admitted into Canada during the year 1967, under what circumstances and what status was he given?

February 12. 1969
Questions
2.	Were the Canadian immigration authorities advised that Jolley voluntarily surrendered his U.S. citizenship in May 1967 while living in Toronto and, if so, was his status in Canada thereby changed?
3.	Did Thomas Glenn Jolley subsequently leave Canada to return to his native United States of America, and, if so, on what date?
4.	Have the Canadian immigration authorities been advised that Jolley has been ordered by the U.S. immigration service to leave the United States voluntarily within 90 days or be deported, .and do they consider that Jolley is readmissible to *Canada?
5.	Has the government formulated any policy *of accepting U.S. draft dodgers who renounce their U.S. citizenship while living in Canada and granting them certificates of identity or a special status of landed immigrant while they remain in Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Thomas Glenn Jolley was admitted to Canada as a landed immigrant on May 3, 1967.
2.	The Department of Manpower and Immigration has not received notification of Mr. Jolley's renunciation of United States citizenship.
3.	Since no exit controls are maintained by Canada, no information is available concerning Mr. Jolley's departure from this country.
4.	No request has been received from the United States authorities to allow Mr. Jolley's return to Canada. Until such time as a request might be received and all of the circumstances known, it is not possible to determine whether Mr. Jolley would be readmissible to Canada.
5.	The Canadian Immigration Act and Regulations contain no reference to an individual's military draft status and consequently this is not a factor in determining admissibility to Canada. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has informed me that the policy of his Department with regard to the issuance of Canadian Certificates of Identity to persons in this position is at present under review.


EDUCATION SUPPORT BRANCH
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Is there an Education Support Branch in the Department of the Secretary of State?
2.	If so (a) when was it created (b) how many positions does it entail, and (c) who are the persons occupying these positions?
3.	What are the aims and purposes of this Branch?
4.	What steps have been taken to implement these aims and purposes?
5.	Is a report of the work of this Branch available?


Hon. Gerard Pelleiier (Secretary of State):: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) The branch was formed following the publication, in 1965, of the report of the Commission on the Financing of Higher Education in Canada, sponsored by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, which recommended "that the federal government assign responsibility for the coordination of assistance to universities from all its agencies to a Minister of the Crown".
Two officials of the Secretary of State department were appointed in early 1966 to assist in this responsibility. Following a competition for a "Coordinator of Federal Activities in Higher Education", Mr. Robin Ross, of the University of Toronto, received a one-year appointment in September, 1966. Further recruitment of staff followed.
(b) 14 positions for the fiscal year 1968-69;
(c)	R. D. Mitchener, E. G. Finley, Z. Kay, G. Gagnon, E. A. L. Fisher, G. Strain, B. Marsh, E. A. Chitty, M. L. Thibert, C. M. T. Lacroix.
3.	The initial broad objective of the branch was to assist in co-ordination of federal policies of education support and research support to universities and other relevant educational institutions and agencies in Canada. In this connection, the branch is presently concerned with; (i) administering Part II of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1967, and its regulations, relating to assistance to the provinces in meeting rising costs of post-secondary education; (ii) establishing liaison machinery with other interested federal departments and agencies; (iii) developing a research facility and an information repository relating to Canadian education; and to the activities of the federal government in financial and other forms of federal support of Canadian education, to the extent that such activities affect the general federal budget; and (iv) making direct grants to individuals and agencies in the interests of the general development of Canadian education.
4.	With reference to points (i) to (iv) in 3 above: (i) liaison work with provincial education departments and agencies, post-secondary education institutions and associations; (ii) chairing, or representing the department at, committee and other meetings relating to education and research support; (iii) in addition to answering numerous requests for information, undertaking publication of results of a
February 12, 1969

survey of 1966-67 and 1967-68 on federal expenditures for research and education (Report No. 1, on "Federal Expenditures on Research in the Academic Community", should be distributed in February; a second report on federal expenditures, on post-secondary education for these two fiscal years, is in the final stage of preparation), (iv) the main grants to date have been for a study on accessibility to higher education sponsored by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada; and a study of university costs jointly sponsored by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Business Officers, and the Canadian Association of University Business Officers, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers.
5.	The branch as such is not expected to publish reports.


TOUR OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA
Mr. Muir (Cape Breion-: The Sydneys):
1.	What was the primary object of the Canadian Government group, that included members of the federal Cabinet, in making an extensive tour of various South and Central American countries recently?
2.	How many persons comprised the official Canadian party and, of these, how many were elected government officials, departmental officials, others?
3.	What was the total cost of the tour and what was the cost under the following headings: transportation, food and accommodation, official entertaining, and other?
4.	How long did this tour last and what countries were visited?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The objectives of the Ministerial Mission to Latin America were set forth in the Prime Minister's statement in the House on October 24 and in the Secretary of State for External Affairs' Statement to the House on November 29. In his statement, the Prime Minister said, inter alia, "-the experience gained will be invaluable in assisting the government to determine what new avenues may now be opening up for closer relations with Latin American countries-"
2.	The Ministerial Mission consisted of 43 persons, not all of whom participated throughout. Six were Members of the House of Commons (five Ministers and one Parliamentary Secretary); 24 were departmental officials; there were 13 others.
Questions
3.	The cost of the mission was $239,886.04. The breakdown of this amount is as follows:
(a)	Transportation	$199,335.80
Chartering of Air
Canada DC-8 . .$175,000.00 Commercial airline flights . ..
Local transportation in cities visited	
(b)	Official entertainment	
(c)	Meals and accommodation .. $19,286.25
(d)	Other:	 $11,610.24
4.	The tour lasted from October 27 to November 27 (32 days). The countries visited were Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala and Costa Rica in that order.


C.B.C.-MOVE FROM COLE'S ISLAND TO DOVER
Mr. Coates: 1.	Why were facilities of the C.B.C. moved from Cole's Island, near Sackville, New Brunswick, to Dover, New Brunswick?
2.	Did the transfer of these facilities require the transfer of employees to Moncton, N.B., and, if so, how many?
3.	Was rental space required in Moncton, N.B., and if so, from whom was the space rented, what was the square footage of space, what is the annual rental in dollars and for what term will the lease run?
4.	What was the cost to the C.B.C. for the transfer of facilities to Dover, N.B., and has the move in question been completed?
5.	What facilities remain at Cole's Island, N.B., and is it the intention of the C.B.C. to enlarge the operation that remains at Cole's Island and, if so, in what manner and what will be the estimated cost of this expansion to the C.B.C. and in what manner will this be beneficial to the Corporation?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. AM transmitting facilities were moved to Upper Dover to improve CBA AM coverage in the Moncton area and to provide space in the Sackville plant for expansion of international shortwave operations.
2.	No.
3.	Yes. The lessor is La Society L'As-somption, the area is 1,120 sq. ft., and the term of the lease is May 1, 1968 to December 3, 1969. It has not been customary to require the C.B.C. to disclose financial details of individual contractual arrangements.
13,391.00
10,944.80
9,633.75

February 12, 19S9
Questions
4.	The move has been completed and the 50,000-watt CBA transmitter is now operational at Upper Dover. The project cost was $434,650.
5.	The C.B.C.'s international shortwave transmitting facilities will remain at Sack-ville. In accordance with recommendations of the Fowler Committee, a subsequent Parliamentary Committee and the White Paper on Broadcasting, the C.B.C. is planning to augment these facilities over a period of about three years by five new transmitters and 30 antennas at an estimated cost of $9,720,000. This will improve northern and armed forces shortwave coverage and is an attempt to raise C.B.C.'s international shortwave service to a level comparable with service provided by other nations of Canada's stature.


TRANSFER OF COMMISSIONAIRES FROM NATIONAL MUSEUM
Mr. MacRae: In relation to the members of the Corps of Commissionaires employed by the National Museum who were affected by the order to be transferred issued by the Secretary of State (a) who were the Commissionaires involved (b) what was the respective date of each transfer of each Commissionaire (c) how many years of service in the Corps had each man (d) how many had volunteered for active service in World War I or II, or both
(e)	where are each of these veterans now employed
(f)	was bilingualism a requisite for enlistment in wartime for any of these veterans?


Gérard Pelletier: I have been advised by the National Museums Corporation as follows: Since the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires is a private organization and not under government jurisdiction, information pertaining to its personnel and their postings is not available from Corporation records.


CANADIAN ARMS SALES
Mr. Laprise: Is the sale of arms by Canadian manufacturers to foreign countries regulated and, if so, since what date and what department controls the sale of arms to foreign powers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes.
The export of arms is subject to the provisions of the Export and Import Permits Act. The present act has been in force since 1954.
Authority to issue permits rests with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


FROBISHER BAY COMMUNITY CENTRE
Mr. Maclnnis (Cape: Breton-East Richmond):
1.	Were tenders called for the construction of a community centre, including a six storey apartment block, at Frobisher Bay and, if so, on what date were such tenders called?
2.	How many tenders were received and what are the names and addresses of the tenderers?
3.	Who were the successful tenderers and what was the amount of the contract awarded to each?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. On
June 3, 1968 tenders were called to construct various buildings including a community centre and a six storey apartment building to be leased by the Department.
2.	Five proposals were received on September 18, 1968; (1) Solar Construction Co. Ltd., Lockerbie Hole (Western) Ltd., Batoni-Hum-ford Ltd.; (2) Ron Engineering Construction Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario; (3) Pitts Quebec Ltee, Montreal, P.Q.; (4) Janin-Tower Co. Ltd., (joint venture) Montreal, P.Q.; (5) A. H. MacLeod & Son Ltd., North Vancouver, B.C.
3.	The successful tender was submitted by the Solar Group at an annual rental of $1,220,577 for the apartment building, row housing, and office space.


MALAMUTE HUSKIES
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	What is the estimated number of Malamute Huskies in the Northwest Territories?
2.	How does this number compare with the estimate for the year 1959?
3.	What steps is the government taking to preserve these wonderful animals from becoming extinct in a few years?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. According to R.C.M.P. figures-checked by number of innoculations-there are 9,500 Malamute Huskies in the Northwest Territories.
2.	This number is somewhat smaller thar in 1959 as the Northerners are using Skidoos instead of dog teams.
3.	Since there appears to be little dangei of the Malamute Husky becoming extinct there is no government program to preservf them.

February 12, 1969


SOREL, QUE., MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
Mr. Caouetle: 1.	Has the Department of Transport been informed of the proposed construction of a regional or municipal airport at Sorel?
2.	If so, has the Department of Transport lent its support to the project?
3.	Has the Department of Transport decided to allocate funds to facilitate the carrying-out of such a project?
4.	If so, what sum has been allocated?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	$213,000.


RACE TRACK WAGERING
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the total amount of monies wagered at race tracks in Canada for both thoroughbred and harness horses events for the year 1968?
2.	What was the total revenue secured by the federal government from this pari-mutuel wagering in 1968?
3.	What was the total cost of the federal Treasury for services rendered in providing the various protections to the public that are associated with horse racing in Canada in 1968?
4.	Does the federal government provide encouragement to the improvement of breeding in either the field of thoroughbred racing or harness racing and, if so, what type of encouragement is provided and what is the total cost to the federal Treasury, and if not, for what reason?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. The total amount wagered at race tracks under the supervision of the Canada Department of Agriculture for the fiscal year 196768 was $369,473,079.
2.	The total revenue collected by the federal government from pari-mutuel wagering for the fiscal year 1967-68 was $1,877,091.
3.	The total cost of the federal Treasury for services rendered in providing the various protections to the public that are associated with horse racing in Canada during the fiscal year 1967-68 was $1,557,856.
4.	Indirect encouragement is provided through the stability and confidence that accrues to the industry because of the supervision of pari-mutuel betting.
Questions


QUEBEC NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many national parks are located in the Province of Quebec?
2 Where is each located?
3.	What is the total area of each?
4.	What are the plans for establishing other parks and at what locations in the Province of Quebec?
5.	Is the federal constituency of Richmond involved in such plans for national parks and, if so, how is it involved?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. None.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	The department is currently negotiating with the Province of Quebec with a view to establishing a National Park on the Forillon Peninsula near Gaspe.
5.	No.


STORAGE CHARGES ON WHEAT CARRY-OVER
Mr. Douglas: For the crop year 1967-68, what was the cost to the federal government of paying storage charges on the above-normal carry-over of wheat?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In so far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned: The payment of carrying costs for the temporary wheat reserves for the crop year 1967-68 was $37,004,162.71.


INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKING SAFETY- JACKNIFING
Mr. Mather: What safety standards are being enforced inter-provincially concerning combination vehicles consisting of truck tractors or trucks coupled with trailers, particularly re-improving the control of such vehicles and especially to reduce "jacknifing" as a cause of crashes?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The highway traffic acts of each province provide safety regulations for trucks and tractor-trailer combinations including braking requirements designed to reduce the possibility of "jacknifing". At present these regulations are enforced by the provinces on vehicles operating interprovincially.

February 12, 1963
Orders for Returns


INTERPROVINCIAL TRUCKING SAFETYBRAKING
Mr. Mather: What action is being taken at the federal level to ensure safety in performance of interprovincially operated trucks and buses, such as braking performance of commercial vehicles, brake tubing and hose connections, coupling devices and towing methods?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Following discussions with the provinces the federal government is presently considering legislation for the enforcement of safety standards for new motor vehicles, including trucks, and parts manufactured in, or imported into Canada.
The provinces are enforcing safety regulations on trucks and buses operating intra-provincially and extra-provincially. These regulations include safety requirements for braking systems.


HEIGHT OF REAR BUMPERS
Mr. Noble: Would the government take the necessary action to require all trucks to be equipped with rear bumpers, low enough to prevent cars from going underneath them in a rear-end collision?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The federal government is now considering legislation to enforce safety standards for motor vehicles, including trucks, and parts manufactured in, or imported into Canada. A standard for rear bumper under-ride guards for trucks is now being developed by the United States Department of Transportation. A similar standard would likely be included in safety regulations adopted under the proposed federal legislation for new motor vehicles.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Fortin: 1.	In the General Election of June 25, 1968, what was in each Electoral District, government expenditure for (a) printing (b) polling stations (c) enumeration (d) returning officers' salaries and expenses (e) miscellaneous Items and, what was the overall total?
2.	What was the total of government expenditure for Armed Forces ballotting?
3.	What was the government expenditure incurred by the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer with regard to (a) election materials (b) telegrams

(c) shipping charges (d) telephones (e) postal charges (f) miscellaneous items, and what was the overall total?
4.	What was the total of government expenditure incurred during this election?
5.	What was the total of those eligible to vote?
6.	What was the total of votes cast?
7.	When does the government intend to carry out the recommendations of the Barbeau Report on election expenses?
Return tabled.


CMHC LOANS ON SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many CMHC loans have been made for single family dwelling home owners during the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	What is the average amount of each of the loans?
3.	What was the interest rate on CMHC loans for home owners during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
4.	How many loans were made by CMHC for purposes other than single family dwellings, for what purpose were the loans made, what was the amount of each of the loans and in what municipality was each of the loans made during each of the years 1960-63 inclusive?
Return tabled.


CMHC LOANS IN VARIOUS CATEGORIES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many CMHC loans were utilized for (a) hospital construction (b) homes for the aged (c) educational institutions (d) special institutions (e) universities (f) students housing (g) co-ops (h) other purposes and what was the amount of each of the loans during each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many applications does CMHC have for loans at the present time for (a) hospital construction (b) homes for the aged (c) educational institutions (d) special institutions (e) universities (f) students housing (g) co-ops (h) other purposes, and does CMHC contemplate accepting all applications submitted and, if not, for what reason and, if so, when and where are each of the projects to be built and what is the amount of each loan requested?
Return tabled.


CRIMINAL CODE-NUMBER OF PROSECUTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 147 AND 149
Mr. Fairweaiher: How many prosecutions have taken place for infractions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Criminal Code for each of the past ten years?
Return tabled.
February 12, 1969

Motions for Papers


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the item of questions on the order paper may I say that my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who is at the federal-provincial conference, has asked me to inquire when he might have an answer to his question No. 1,008 of December 10, which has been on the order paper for over two months.
I might ask at the same time about my own question, No. 851, which has been on the order paper since November 22.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I will make inquiries to ascertain the status of these questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I gather that the remaining questions stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 38 for production of papers is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.



REPORT ON PEMBINA RIVER DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 38-Mr. Muir (Lisgar):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the federal government and Government of the United States, and the federal government and the Government of the Province of Manitoba, in connection with the report and recommendations of the International Joint Commission on the Pembina River Project of Manitoba and North Dakota.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 38 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60?



MANPOWER STUDY BY BELANGER, OUELLETTE CO., MONTREAL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study done for the Department of
Manpower and Immigration by Belanger, Ouellette and Associates Inc., Montreal, Quebec.
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the member's notice of motion requesting the tabling of the said report, I must inform the house that this report contains matters confidential to the department, therefore I regret that it cannot be tabled, and under the circumstances I would ask the hon. member whether he will consent to withdrawing the motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain reports and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member asking that the motion be transferred for debate?


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I am trying to explain why.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is transferred for debate.



MANPOWER STUDY BY OPERATIONS RESEARCH CORP.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study done for the Department of Manpower and Immigration by Operations Research Incorporated, Maryland, U.S.A.
Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, for the same reason as applied to the previous notice of motion, I would ask the hon. member whether he is willing to withdraw this motion.


David Orlikow: For
the same reason, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have this transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: For the same reason, the motion is transferred for debate, pursuant to standing order 48.
MANPOWER STUDY BY KATES, PEAT CO. Motion No. 59-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study done for the Department of Manpower and Immigration by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company, Toronto, Ontario.
February 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration): Again for the same reason, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to standing order 48.



MANPOWER STUDY BY OPERATIONS RESEARCH, OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 60-Mr, Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study done for the Department of Manpower and Immigration by Operations Research Industries, Ottawa, Ontario.
Gérard Loiselle: Once more, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ditto.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. [Translation]


Yves Forest: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the discussions between Ottawa and Peking as projected is it a basis of any exchange of ambassadors, that the Governmentt of Canada recognize the claim that Peking has sovereignty over Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure this question will arise during the discussions, but I do not think any useful purpose would be served by commenting on it at the present time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Perhaps I could approach this from another direction. Will the minister say that in respect of any such exchange of ambassadors the government will refuse to recognize the claim of Peking to sovereignty over Taiwan and the people thereof?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much that the Canadian government would recognize or challenge the sovereignty of Peking over Formosa. This is a matter of dispute. When we recognize other countries, we do not necessarily recognize all their territorial claims or challenge them.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister about the undertaking given in March of 1968 by the present Prime Minister, and also his undertaking during the election campaign, that refusal by communist China to permit the continuance of diplomatic relations between Canada and Taiwan would be the end of the proposal to recognize communist China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government's policy with respect to the recognition of China has been expressed by the Prime Minister and myself in recent days. That is our policy, and if it varies in any respect from what has been said previously, it varies. But the position at the present time is as I have expressed it.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister state that a solemn undertaking given by ministers is to be broken in this flagrant manner?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he can assure the house that the negotiations aimed at establishing diplomatic relations with communist China will not have any adverse effects on our relations with mainland China.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of occasions, I do not think it would be possible to recognize two governments of China. Therefore, if we do recognize Peking, of course it will affect our relations with the Nationalist government, which claims jurisdiction over the same area.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Has the minister received from the government of the United States or of other allied countries representations running counter to
February 12, 1969	COMMONS
the position taken by the Canadian government concerning the recognition of communist China?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have received from a number of countries comments both favourable and unfavourable to the action that we are proposing to take.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the minister say he has received notes against the idea from the American government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the nature of the representations from the United States was revealed in a public statement which they have issued.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates specifically to the governments of Japan, Australia and Thailand. Has the Canadian government been in consultation with the governments of those or any other countries of southeast Asia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I have said to the house on a number of occasions, we were very careful to have prior consultations with all friendly countries, including those mentioned by the hon. gentleman, before I made my announcement last Monday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. It relates to a question I put to the Prime Minister last Friday concerning substantial payments- that drug companies in the United States are making back to people that they overcharged, and whether or not Canada would be doing something like this. The Prime Minister said on Friday that he would take the question as notice. I have been waiting each day since for some other minister, perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to deal with it. Has an answer been prepared; and if so, does any minister have it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I really could not say, Mr. Speaker, because
DEBATES	5425
Inquiries of the Ministry this particular matter has not been brought to my attention. But I would be glad to pass my hon. friend's representations along to the Prime Minister's office.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I do not know if it is in order, but I rely on your knowledge as well as on your kindness to teach me how to behave in this house, according to the Rules.
In the speeqh I delivered yesterday, I am quoted, at page 5386 of the French Hansard, as saying unpleasant things about doctors. It is an error in transcription because instead of "medecins" (doctors), they make me say "mechants" (wicked people). I would not like doctors to think that I call them wicked people. Therefore, I request that the appropriate rectification be made.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I had requested that a petition including 5,000 names be attached as an appendix to Hansard. I understand that unanimous consent was required but I thought I had it, since nobody raised any objection.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, I repeat my request, if it is in order. In any case, I will comply with your ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, it is usual to make corrections to the official report on motions, when the changes are significant.
As far as the second point is concerned, I must say that is it is not the practice of the house to append to the official report private documents as the one mentioned yesterday by the hon. member, and it is evidently for that reason that it has not been possible to agree to his suggestion to the effect that the 5,000 signatures be appended to yesterday's Hansard.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, am I permitted to make a remark?
In my opinion, this is not a private document, it is a petition sent to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may, if he wants, discuss this point of order with the Chair, but the decision was taken after due consideration, I can assure him, and he cannot refer to it again now that it has been made.
February 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence arising from the answer given yesterday concerning bombings at armouries in Montreal. The minister said that steps had been taken to protect the property of the government of Canada. In view of the second bombing last night which damaged both public and private property, will the minister say whether the government regards the steps taken for the protection of property to be adequate and satisfactory.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has to be noted first of all that the second bombing, like the first one, actually took place outside the building. I think we can say that the most stringent measures we have taken must have had some effect, because the second bomb was discovered by the security guard who went inside to call the police. Unfortunately the bomb exploded before the police arrived. We are co-operating fully with the Montreal police in order to enforce security as much as possible.



EDUCATION


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice, I direct my question to the Solicitor General.
Has the Department of Justice instituted or will it institute an inquiry regarding the violence which erupted yesterday at the Sir George Williams University, and, if so, will the minister make a statement in this regard today or tomorrow?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt if this question comes under the administrative responsibility of the minister, but perhaps I should allow him to answer it.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether this

is a matter for the federal authority. I would think it is rather for the local enforcement authorities in the area concerned. However, because of the seriousness of the situation I will look into the question further, and have an answer brought forward either by the Minister of Justice or myself.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of Transport in the absence of the Prime Minister, and it relates to events at Sir George Williams University. In view of the massive commitment of federal funds, the heavy damage to public property and the dangerous civil disorder, is it the intention of the government to institute with provincial authorities a judicial inquiry into the causes and events leading up to this shocking manifestation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Solicitor General has already said he will look into the matter, and I am sure he will report to his colleagues if he feels that any federal action is warranted in the circumstances.


Robert Muir: In
view of the growing and concerted movement to disrupt and damage university life, is it the intention of the federal government to continue making a massive federal contribution to secondary education, with no questions asked, or will the government take action to come to grips-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



STUDENT LOANS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether consultations have been held with other ministers involved, such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs, where this pertains to the participation of foreign students, and the Minister of Finance, from the point of view of limiting loans to students who participate in this sort of activity.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there is
already a question outstanding from the hon.
February 12, 1969

member for Oxford, that I have promised to answer and which has a bearing on the question asked today.
Foreign students who study in Canada under technical assistance programs administered by the Canadian International Development Agency are required to sign undertakings in which they agree, in part, to abide by the rules of the universities or other institutions in which they study, and to refrain from engaging in political activities. It is also made clear that their training awards may be withdrawn at any time, for sufficient cause, as determined by the government of Canada.
If a student who is receiving such an award were to become involved in a breach of the peace, bloodshed or other act of disorder, we would expect to receive an official complaint from his university, or the local law enforcement authorities. Each such complaint would be examined in order to determine the appropriate action to be taken, in light of the particular circumstances of the case.
The Canadian International Development Agency has no record of receiving any such complaint from a university or law enforcement authority.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: A supplementary question relating not only to foreign students but to all students. Is the Minister of Finance giving consideration to withdrawing or withholding student loans from any student who participates in campus riots?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This would be a matter for the provincial authorities who administer the loans. The government of Canada guarantees the loans and pays the interest but the loans are granted by the provincial authorities.



EXPO '67 WRITING OFF OF MONTREAL AND QUEBEC INDEBTEDNESS

Edgar John Benson: May I take this opportunity to reply to a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Wellington with respect to Expo notes? The notes of Expo '67 Corporation which matured on June 30, 1968, are still recorded as liabilities due to guarantors. They will be dealt with as part of the arrangements for the winding up of Expo. These arrangements are not yet finalized, so I am not yet in a position to state what action will be taken.
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



CANADIAN REPRESENTATION AT BASEL BANKERS MEETING

Edgar John Benson: On
Monday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary Centre asked a question concerning recycling, and the meeting which was held at Basel last weekend. As I stated, Canada was represented at the meeting of western central bankers held on that occasion. The Governor of the Bank of Canada was present. Canada agreed to a reply to be made by the central bank governors to the chairman of the ministers and governors of the group of ten, Herr Schiller, in connection with paragraph 8 of the communique issued by the ministers and governors at Bonn on November 22, 1968.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Does Canada's agreement to this plan involve any commitment or pledge of Canada's foreign exchange?


Edgar John Benson: The governors of the central banks were asked to look into the question of recycling. They have made a report to Herr Schiller, who is chairman of the group of ten, it will be considered by the group of ten before action is taken. In the interim there is no liability whatever on Canada's part.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance?
As Mr. Campbell, who is president of the Sun Life Company, has said that several countries have resorted to creating money to compensate for their lack of funds, does the minister intend to use the Bank of Canada to create money in our country?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this question should be placed on the order paper.



TRANSPORT


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister undertake to investigate recent rate reductions by the Express Transport Association in western Canada which appear to discriminate against Regina and Saskatoon?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that his question be placed on the order paper.
5428	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry DRUGS



REQUIREMENT TO SHOW INGREDIENTS IN MEDICATION

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that a St. Catharines boy is dead after inhaling vapour from a medication for colds the ingredients of which are unknown, and in view of the fact that the Proprietary or Patent Medicine Act does not require manufacturers to publish the medical ingredients of such products, will the minister look into the matter of an amendment to the act to require the manufacturers to do so?


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the food and drug directorate is at the present tune investigating this matter. The results of this investigation will undoubtedly enable the minister to give the hon. member a more complete answer.



ESTATE TAX ACT


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the Minister of Finance a question, but he ran out when he realized it. I see however that he is now returning. I should like to ask him whether, as a result of the conversations his government has had with the provincial premiers, he can now advise the house if any decision has been made by him or by his government to consult with the provinces before proceeding any further with the estate tax measure?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if I might just complete my answer-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. minister may not do so without leave of the Chair, and the Chair has already recognized the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to make my answer more complete. [Mr. Speaker.)
DEBATES	February 12, 1969
When I answered the question put by the hon. member for Calgary North, I simply said no. What I should have said was no, there were no requests for further consultations from the provincial finance ministers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to get into an argument over this, but let me ask the minister this. Whether there has been a request, or there has not, would the minister consider approaching the provinces to see if they do consent to his estate tax measure as it affects property and civil rights?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the estate tax was introduced before the ministers of finance meeting in December. At that time I indicated that I would be glad to discuss the matter with any finance ministers who were interested. I received representations from one province, which I answered before we proceeded with the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house whether he has had a complaint from the province of Alberta, that his department is taxing the refund of estate tax that is made by the province?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is incorrect. I have not had a complaint, but I have heard such rumours. As I say, this is of course incorrect.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Finance. It is reported that income tax officials are taxing estate tax refunds as income. Would the minister kindly check on this and let us know formally in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should direct his question to the Chair. In any event he has made a representation to the minister.



THE BUDGET

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST FOR PRESENTATION IN SPRING Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the discussions over the last few days, can the minister now indicate whether or not it is any more certain, or likely, that a budget will be presented some time this spring?
Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I have not ruled out the presentation of a budget. There is no date presently in mind as to when a budget will be presented.
February 12, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	5429
Inquiries of the Ministry
IMMIGRATION	attention at the moment. I cannot give the
application for admission by jews precise date, but I would not expect legisla-in IRAQ	tion on this subject in this session.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether there have been any applications made for admission to Canada by Jews in Iraq and, if so, whether the government is giving sympathetic consideration to granting early admission of these people who in their own interests have to leave their own country?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that that question might have been more appropriately addressed to the minister of immigration, but in any event tomorrow my colleague the minister of immigration and myself will be meeting with the Canadian Jewish Congress and others to talk about how best we can help. I cannot answer specifically the question asked by the right hon. gentleman, because it would not be information that came across my desk in the ordinary course of events.



JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In view of the shortage of items on the order paper, is it the intention of the minister to bring forward legislation dealing with amendments to the Juvenile Delinquents Act? If not, when may we expect this legislation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the date that I gave in my previous answer. It is highly improbable that it will be introduced in this session.


John Gilbert: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the former solicitor general brought forth legislation that had received cabinet approval with regard to the expunction of criminal records, when can we expect legislation dealing with this matter?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously, a great deal of attention is being given at the moment to this subject and to preparing legislation, which incidentally involves records that are primarily in the custody of the municipalities and the provinces. The subject is getting very active



MACE-TESTS TO REVEAL POSSIBLE DANGERS

Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. My question is related to the question I asked on February 5 regarding the chemical Mace. At that time the minister said he would take my question under consideration. I was wondering whether that has been done and if the parliamentary secretary is in a position to reply to that question.


Rosaire Gendron: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot give the hon. member a satisfactory answer, but I will again bring his question to the attention of the minister.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to direct it to the Solicitor General and it is in connection with the same subject, the use of the chemical Mace. May I ask the Solicitor General whether consideration is being given to authorizing use of the chemical Mace by the R.C.M.P.


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimali-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the Department of Fisheries at present conducting studies to determine the effect of Russian trawling on the supply of halibut, ocean perch and other groundfish off the coast of British Columbia?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure that that question is one of urgency. If it is, the minister might like to reply.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries has carried out studies of this nature, and others are under way.
February 12, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry TRANSPORT



CONSTRUCTION OF NORTHUMBERLAND CAUSEWAY

Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether, in the wake of the eloquent appeal of the Premier of Prince Edward Island, consideration is being given to finishing the Northumberland causeway?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is
finished all right.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the recent downgrading of the Canadian Pacific Railway passenger train "The Canadian" by the removal of a day coach and the Vancouver-Montreal sleeper, would the minister initiate an investigation into whether or not there is adequate space for the travelling public across the nation?


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



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who, according to the schedule, is supposed to be here. In view of public criticism of some of the programs on the C.B.C. "Festival" series, and particularly in view of cancellation of some proposed programs on that series, is the minister prepared to offer guidance in this respect to the C.B.C.?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State is attending the constitutional conference, but I will be glad to have this question brought to his attention.



AIR TRANSPORT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. What progress is the government making in the matter of 
securing recognition of Winnipeg as an international gateway with respect to air line fares?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that the question as asked is very general in nature, and I have some doubt whether it can be accepted in this form.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Dix
heures.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, before you call orders of the day might I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether he has had a chance to look into the question that he took as notice a few days ago, as to whether or not Canada was proceeding with capital expenditures on Canadian defence bases for NATO in Europe while the present review is still under way. The minister said last week that he would look into this matter.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we were planning any construction. I should have thought that construction, under these conditions, would be a contribution to infrastructure, something we undertake normally. However I will look with pleasure into the specific aspect of the hon. member's question.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-151, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read a third time and passed.
Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned at ten o'clock on Monday I had begun speaking about the serious problems facing the fishing industry of Canada and, more particularly, facing that industry in eastern Canada. I repeat, we look forward with eager anticipation to the statement the minister has promised to make before February 21. He promised to say what the government intends
February 12, 1969

to do on an interim, short and long term basis to cope with the serious difficulties facing the groundflsh industry and the fishing industry of eastern Canada generally.
Since the crisis came to a head last fall the minister has consulted experts and his own colleagues in cabinet, and met trade representatives and representatives of the Newfoundland government. I am sure he consulted many times the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) who is, I am glad to say, in his seat. Because the minister has had all these consultations and meetings, we expect him to make a worth-while statement.
Perhaps the Minister of Defence Production did not actually mean what he said last Friday in St. John's, when he suggested his colleagues from Newfoundland were all talk and no action. I hope he did not mean those words; I hope they just slipped out; otherwise we may take it he is pointing an accusing finger at his own government. Surely he was suggesting, if he meant those words, that the government of which he is a member is discriminating against those constituencies and provinces which did not support the government in the last election. Perhaps he meant that members of parliament from constituencies which did not support the government ought to go home, because they are wasting their time. Because if his words are to be taken seriously, the implication is that the Liberal caucus is running the country, and that we are governed by edicts of cabinet. Personally, I do not think the minister really ment what he said when he was so critical of his Newfoundland colleagues.
Of course, we hope the minister is aware of the problems facing the Newfoundland fishing industry. We hope the Minister of Defence Production has enough influence with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries, to make sure that the Minister of Fisheries makes his statement before February 21. The Minister of Defence Production knows how serious is the problem of our fishing industry; and there is no need to treat that problem in a partisan way.
The fact is that although the total catch for 1968 was 60 million pounds over the 1967 catch, the landed value of that catch was lower by $500,000. Therein lies the problem, and therein is the crisis facing the industry. We have all heard the story of closed fish plants, and fish plants that are contemplating having to close. In my constituency alone last year two fish plants were forced to close. At the last minute the provincial government has
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act had to step in to avert the closing of four more plants. Is it any wonder we look forward with anticipation to the minister's statement and count the days until he makes it?
Since the minister comes from British Columbia I can well understand his enthusiasm for the bill. He knows his province has taken a great deal of advantage of this legislation. Fishermen of his province have been awarded the lion's share of all loans made under this legislation. He also knows that Newfoundland, the country's most important fishing province, for reasons still unknown to us, has not been able to take advantage of this legislation. In the last two years of the operation of the act no loans were made in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick, and only a few were made in Nova Scotia. Hardly any were made in Quebec. There must be a reason for this. There must be a reason why fishermen of British Columbia can qualify for loans under this legislation while fishermen from Newfoundland and New Brunswick cannot. Before debate finishes I hope the minister will give us the reason. We have a right to expect him to tell the house what steps he and his department propose to take to encourage the fishermen of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec to take better advantage of this legislation.
Is it any wonder we cannot get excited about the minister's proposed amendment, which would increase the maximum loan from $10,000 to $25,000? It is a matter of indifference to us whether you can borrow up to $10,000 or $25,000-but I expect it is very important for British Columbia fishermen. I suspect that is why the minister tried to introduce this amendment. I believe he has had representations from members of the fishing industry of his province in this regard-and more power to them. If they can take advantage of this legislation, we are all in favour of that. All we say is, there must be something wrong with the bill if it cannot be applied to the fishermen of Newfoundland; that there must be something wrong with its present form if it cannot be applied to the province of New Brunswick, and that there must be something wrong with the legislation if the fishermen of the Gaspe do not seem to be able to take advantage of it. I hope the minister will deal with these things before the debate closes. I hope he will make some reference to them because we have a right to know. We should not legislate for only one part of the country in this regard. This is an
February 12, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act important industry which is practically nationwide.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The fishermen of Newfoundland are just as anxious to take advantage of this federal legislation as the fishermen of British Columbia. Could the trouble be with the approved lenders? If that is the case why doesn't the department talk to approved lenders and encourage them to make loans to fishermen? Whatever the trouble, Mr. Speaker, the legislation in its present form is of no use to us.
On second reading the minister said that perhaps the reason this legislation was not being used was because fishermen in Newfoundland were taking advantage of provincial legislation. The best advice I can get is that the provincial legislation is of no particular value right now because no loans are being made under it.
I am sorry to see the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) has left the chamber. I had hoped that he would take part in this debate instead of being content just to speak to the Liberal party in Newfoundland. I hope he will have something meaningful to say about this bill before the debate ends.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal briefly with a portion of the minister's statement on third reading. It is to be found at page 5353 of Hansard. It is a most extraordinary statement, and many of us are baffled as to why it had to be made in the first place. I quote briefly from it:
This proposed amendment was incorporated in a notice which I sent to the Clerk of the House on February 5. 1969. I also commended it to the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry during the course of its deliberations on Thursday, February 6, as many hon. members present know. The notice I sent to the Clerk of the House of Commons was to the effect that after Bill C-151 had been reported back to this house I would propose under Standing Order 75 the following motion-
Then he went on to read his amendment. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that his amendment went to the Clerk of the House on February 5. It is also interesting to note that the minister said he commended the amendment to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on Thursday, February 6. Yet five or six days prior to that the minister, referring to Bill C-151 in a speech to the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union

in Vancouver, on February 1, said, and I think this is worth putting in Hansard:
You can borrow up to $25,000 from any bank, or credit union, or insurance company. And you will be able to borrow this money at a lower rate of interest-
A little earlier on he said:
This act, which has recently been up-dated, is geared to finance loans of up to $25,000.
He did not say that this was proposed, or that it was planned. He said, "is geared to finance loans of up to $25,000." Yet when he spoke there was no amendment before the house.


John (Jack) Davis: On
a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I believe the document to which the hon. member is referring is prefaced with the statement "notes for an address" to be given at the annual meeting of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union in Vancouver. These were notes, and I actually used terms which were appropriate to the circumstances. I said the legislation was under consideration. Certainly the fishermen there were very well aware of it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a question of privilege. In any event the hon. member who has the floor should be allowed to continue his speech.


James Aloysius McGrath: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that this is the speech which was circulated by the minister's office with the minister's approval after he made the speech, and if he had any corrections to make to it he could have called it in or sent the corrections out. To the best of my knowledge no such corrections were made and consequently we must accept this document as an accurate report of what he said in his speech.
I point out that the minister commended the amendment to the standing committee on Thursday, February 6, six days after he made his speech in Vancouver, six days after he referred to the amendment, and six days after he referred to it in such a way as to indicate that this bill had already been passed. I point out to the minister that the bill is still before this house, that it is not yet legislation, that it is not yet law nor will it be until it has received third reading in this house, until it has passed all stages in the other place and receives Royal Assent.
Notwithstanding the fact that the government has a majority in this house I submit
February 12, 1969

that we are not here to rubber stamp legislation at the whim of the government, nor are we here to act as trained seals at the whim of the government. It strikes me as utterly incredible that the minister did not know on February 1 that his proposed amendment was out of order. On the contrary, he spoke at that time as if the amendment raising the limit to $25,000 had not only been accepted but passed by parliament. Where were the law officers of the Crown at that time? Where were the minister's own officials? Where were the minister's cabinet colleagues?
Did the minister not ask for advice on the amendment? Surely he must have consulted with somebody between the time he introduced the resolution in the house on September 16 and second reading of the bill on January 21, and his first public reference to increasing the limit to $25,000 on February 1 when he spoke in Vancouver?
Surely during all that time he must have discussed it with somebody, or could it be that the minister in his characteristically selfassured manner discussed it with no one, consulted no one? In any event, from the time this legislation was introduced in this house on Friday, December 20, right up until the time of second reading, right up to the time of the committee study on February 6, during all that time it seems that the minister not once checked with his colleagues in cabinet, for example with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), or with the law officers of the Crown to see if his amendment was in order.
I think it is fair to say that we only got some action on this following the minister's speech in Vancouver on February 1. I think that the minister owes the house an explanation as to his conduct on this whole matter. If the minister is at fault let him get up in this house and say so.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
In my view he will have to make a better explanation of the situation than the statement he made in the house on Monday night. The minister owes us an explanation before he can expect us to consent to third reading of the bill. We all know that the house is finding its way through the new rules. We all know, and greatly respect, the difficulties of Your Honour in this regard. Yet it would appear to me that the simple way out of this embarrassing situation would be for the minister to ask for unanimous consent to proceed with his amendment or withdraw the bill. However, he elected not to do so. Obviously, he had some doubt concerning the

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act course of action he was taking because he raised the doubt himself. What did the minister have to say about this? I think it is worth referring to his speech of Monday night in which he mentioned this matter. He said, as recorded at page 5354 of Hansard:
There is, however, another and important reservation. I am advised that the proposed amendment is not acceptable on another and altogether different ground for reasons which are only now becoming clear because they relate to the new rules-
Then, the minister goes on to say:
I now find that any amendment of the character to which I alluded in the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, or such as I have read into the record, would not be acceptable because the intent of the amendment is sufficiently different from the main provisions of Bill C-151-
Apparently, the minister now is setting himself up as an authority on the new rules because he did not say who gave him this advice. The minister states that the intent of the amendment is sufficiently different from the main provisions of Bill C-151 as to disqualify it under our new rules. Yet, in my view, Bill C-151 is amending legislation; it contains an amendment to a statute that is already on the statute books. It would appear that the new rules would permit an additional amendment to be made to the same bill.
It would seem to me also that it would be reasonable for the minister to ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the bill, then bring it back with a new amendment. But for reasons which we find difficult to understand, he has not done so. What difference would one more amendment make? Is the minister afraid that in doing this he might expose the fact he made a serious error? Everybody makes mistakes. Even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) makes mistakes, as does his colleague the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). The minister is not infallible. All he had to do was admit that he made a mistake, a colossal boner, and then withdraw the bill. But rather, he insists on proceeding with the introduction of a new bill. He will take up the time of the house with another bill, whereas he could have saved the time of the house by withdrawing this bill and then introducing it in new form. In so doing, he would have been assured of the co-operation of all members of the house in the interest of expedition and saving time.


Mr. Perrault:: Nonsense.


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member for Burna-by-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is eloquent in interjecting from that position in which he is most eloquent.
February 12, 1963

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
In any event, we sincerely hope the minister will reconsider the ridiculous position he is in before this debate concludes; that he will withdraw the bill and bring it back with the new amendments included so that the house can get on with its business. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the house will give him our full co-operation in seeing to it that the bill is expeditiously passed through the house. That is the least the minister can do. Certainly before this debate concludes, he owes the house an explanation.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate on this particular bill with considerable surprise. Members on the other side of the house tell us, first, this bill only applies to British Columbia, and then they criticize it because of this fact. I wonder whether they have forgotten that the province of British Columbia does not set aside the same funds for fishermen as are set aside for the fishermen in the maritime provinces. I have no desire at this time to tell the maritime members, particularly the Newfoundland members, about the provincial schemes which exist in their provinces; but I believe it is well worth pointing out that the British Columbia fishermen are forced to borrow money from the commercial lending institutions. This may or may not be the case in the maritime provinces. I think these provincial lending agencies are able to take care of the needs of the fishermen in the maritime provinces and therefore it is not necessary for them to go to the commercial market as is the case in respect of so many of my constituents in British Columbia.
The figures given by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), as well as by the previous speaker, indicate that only a few fishermen in the maritimes are making use of this money. I think they should realize that the reason for this lies right in their own provinces. They should find out exactly what is going on in the fishing industry in their provinces before they give misinformation to the members here.
This bill is a relatively simple one, and has one objection. The minister made clear to hon. members in the house, before the fisheries committee, and outside the house, his intention to bring in another amending bill which would raise the upper limits on the amount of money which could be borrowed under this particular guarantee, but that is not in this bill. It is perfectly clear that in this bill we are raising the rate of interest in

order to allow more money to become available to the west coast fishermen, and fishermen elsewhere in Canada, if they cannot borrow money from the provincial agencies.
I think the suggestion of hon. members opposite that this bill be withdrawn and another amendment be included, to make an omnibus bill, is absurd. I think they should get together with some of their colleagues who are anxious to break up other bills such as bill C-150 which they suggest are omnibus bills. Here, there is a very good reason for two bills. If there is any criticism of the minister, it can only be that he is too eager to assist the fishermen and bring forward good amendments to the legislation. There is no question that if we follow the suggestions of the opposition members on this matter and withdraw this bill we will delay the date at which private money will become available for the fishermen. It is perfectly clear that the objective of the opposition is to hold up this bill. It is perfectly clear that their objective is to prevent more money getting into the hands of the fishermen, so that they can outfit boats for the summer.


James Aloysius McGrath: Nonsense.


David Anderson: In my opinion, this is a disgrace.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member in his remarks suggested we were deliberately trying to hold up this legislation in order to prevent the fishermen taking advantage of it. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is imputing motives and the hon. member should withdraw those remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. As hon. members know, it is not a practice of this house to impute motives. It would appear to me however that we are really more in an area of debate than privilege and I would suggest we hear the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson).
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think that what the hon. member just said was said in a flagrant disregard for the rules of the house. He can, I suggest, state what the effect of holding up this legislation might be, but that is not what he stated. He stated that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and other members in the opposition were holding this up for a certain
February 12, 1969

purpose. 1 think he ought to withdraw what he said, because it was completely improper.


Mr. Crouse:: I, too, wish to speak to the point of order. The hon. member served on the fisheries committee and he has been made aware of our efforts to expedite this legislation and our efforts to put into the legislation the very words the minister uttered during his speech on the west coast. We were barred from this action because of the fact we are not on that side of the house. It is not factually correct for the hon. member to impute this motive to members of our party. We have, during every stage of the deliberations on this bill, endeavoured to expedite it in accordance with the minister's stated purpose. I ask the hon. member to withdraw his remarks.


Mr.   Olio@: Mr. Speaker, there is another point of order. I believe you had made the ruling that there was no question of privilege or point of order and the debate should proceed. Secondly, -


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East originally rose on a question of privilege. My understanding was that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) rose on a point of order. My remarks dealt with the original question of privilege. I suggest that it is probably in the interests of the house and fishermen generally that we hear the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson).


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to impute anything-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not exactly sure of the disposition you have made of my point of order. My specific point of order was that the hon. member was in breach of the rules of the house. I do not rise easily on this sort of thing, but he did just that. I did not understand Your Honour's ruling. If it is that the hon. member did not breach the rules of the house, I want that stated because I intend to make an appeal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. My remarks on the question of privilege or the point made by the hon. member for St. John's East were intended to agree that it is not a practice of this house to impute motives. It was not my impression that this was what the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich had done. If he did so, I did not understand that. I was interrupted for a moment during that period of the debate. I am sure the hon. member, like other members, will observe the
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act practices of the house. If he has done what has been intimated, he might like to withdraw his remarks.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly quite happy to withdraw any suggestion of motivation. I will put the hon. members remarks down to ignorance on the part of members on the other side. I certainly think the member who rose on this particular question of privilege or point of order-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Don't be so stupid. This is a point of order.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Don't you be so stupid.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Keep your eyes open, and see what is going on.


David Anderson: The hon. member who spoke earlier suggested, in fact, what would happen as a result of the withdrawal of this bill. He referred to the withdrawal of this important piece of legislation for the fishermen of Canada, and he stated something to the effect that what would happen-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


David Anderson: -would be a delay in the implementation of this measure to the detriment-


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I did not say what the hon. member has just suggested. I stated that it is clear he has the right to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East. I can make no objection to that. He can call him anything he likes, but he cannot do what he did; that is to suggest that the purpose of the objections raised by that hon. member was to adversely affect the fishermen involved.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated, I am quite willing to withdraw any imputation that may have been made as far as the purpose is concerned, but the hon. member stated flatly sir, that the withdrawal of this bill would delay the implementation of this legislation, at a time when fishermen could have obtained more money under this legislation.


James Aloysius McGrath: He did not say that. That is not true.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Once again, I did not say anything of the sort.
February 12, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act


David Anderson: Let me refer to what the other speaker said. I will accept your words, but I have grave doubts-


James Aloysius McGrath: Address the Chair.


David Anderson: Let me refer to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who said he was eager to expedite this piece of legislation. The hon. member sitting behind him talked about a delay as a result of withdrawing this bill from the house at this time. Here is obviously another rift in the policy of the opposition in respect of this bill. Personally, I find it difficult to understand why members take this attitude because if we withdraw this bill we will delay approval of this excellent amendment.
The hon. member for South Shore said he was very keen to expedite this bill, yet the hon. member for St. John's East stated he would like this bill withdrawn. I cannot think of anything more contradictory than those two statements coming from hon. members from the same area of Canada. They have taken diametrically opposed positions in respect of what should be done about this bill.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, it was only yesterday that I asked the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) whether he intended to withdraw the bill in view of the confusion that had been created by his statement on the west coast. It was our purpose to have the bill withdrawn and re-intro-dueed. This action is necessary as a result of the bumbling and inefficiency of the minister himself.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, we now have the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka confusing the issue as to what they actually said a moment ago. I simply state that this bill is a good bill; it embodies a good objective. I find it strange that the hon. member for South Shore is endeavouring to object to a bill which is designed to make more money available to fishermen who wish to borrow from commercial lending institutions.
As far as the other aspect goes regarding the upper limit on the amount that can be borrowed, the minister has stated that he is determined to bring in another amendment as soon as possible to cover this situation. I fail to see why we should hold up one good measure in order to get another. I think we should go ahead with this provision and put it into the act. This will put more money in the hands of the fishermen. Very shortly, we will

be able to bring another bill before the house which will raise the upper limit on the amount that can be borrowed under the terms of the act.
I do not think there is anything very difficult about this bill. Hon. members opposite from the maritimes, I think, are confusing the matter when they continue to talk about this bill not applying in that area. The reason is perfectly obvious. The provinces have funds available at a very low rate of interest-lower than commercial rates-which fishermen are making use of in that area. If, as has been suggested, the provinces are no longer going to make this money available, certainly the fishermen of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and other provinces in the east can make use of this act by borrowing money from commercial lending institutions, just as the fishermen of British Columbia have done for many years. This bill does not apply exclusively to British Columbia; it is applicable to the whole of Canada. If these fishermen find that another source of money has dried up there is no reason in the world for them not using the provisions of this act to obtain money from other lending institutions.
I think everything is fairly clear as to what will be available under the provisions of this bill. The bill deals only with the rate of interest. It should be perfectly easy for hon. members of the opposition, who are present

and they are few-to resolve their own differences of opinion. However, they would be more constructive if they made suggestions for improvements. Such suggestions would be more acceptable than the statements they have made today.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot let this bill go by without making at least a few brief comments. It is similar to some of the agricultural bills with which we dealt earlier this session, in that it provides more capital funds for the fishing industry but at a higher rate of interest. At the time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) introduced his bills, I tried to point out that the problem of many farmers was not the need of a larger infusion of capital into the industry but a need for operating funds. We were not very successful in getting the Minister of Agriculture to accept our argument in this respect.
The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has introduced a similar bill. I admit that the fisheries industry can probably use larger amounts of capital and can take advantage of
February 12, 1969	COMMONS
increased capital that is made available to it, but I suspect that this industry also needs an increased operating fund in order to pay the higher interest rate to be charged, if nothing else. It may well be that with an increased source of capital, the fishing industry could operate more efficiently and afford to pay increased interest rates.
Since I came to this house last fall I have noticed that there has been a deliberate-perhaps I should not impute motives to the government-but there has been a consistent, at least, approach to solving problems in this way. When any industry has a problem, the government says: Let us lend it some money. We have not been considering the operating problems of the industries concerned.
I do not know whether the minister is allowed to discuss the matter at this stage, but I would like to register a protest in this respect. I do not think that all the problems of industries can be solved by merely lending more money. Serious consideration must be given to the income aspect of these industries.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the remarks of my hon. friend opposite a moment ago, and the confusion that arose therefrom, could very well have been avoided if the bill under discussion had been properly drafted and presented.


James Aloysius McGrath: He is not even in his seat.


Walter C. Carter: Obviously, this bill has been sloppily drafted. The minister's speech in Vancouver on February 1, wherein he made certain statements which almost completely contradict the intent of the bill, is an indication that confusion still reigns in the Liberal government. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches made on this bill and do not mind confessing that I am becoming more frustrated each day. I must confess, too, that I find it extremely difficult to reconcile the contents of this bill with the statement of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in Vancouver on February 1.
As my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has already pointed out, in the course of the speech the minister made in Vancouver on February 1 he stated the following when referring to this bill, Bill C-151:
This act which has recently been updated is geared to finance loans up to $25,000.
In the same speech he said that fishermen would be able to borrow this amount of money at a lower rate of interest than is 29180-344
DEBATES	5437
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act available to anyone else in Canada, that is, anyone other than the government of Canada itself. The minister went on to say that the interest rate would be geared to the interest rate paid by the government of Canada on its long term loans. If Ottawa paid 6 per cent, the fishermen would be asked to pay 7 per cent. If the interest rate on federal borrowings falls to 5 per cent, the rate charged under this act will be 1 per cent higher. The difference will be 1 per cent above the interest rate paid by the federal government on its borrowings. That is what the minister said in Vancouver, but I do not see any reference to this formula in the bill before us.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister is showing his usual contempt for parliament.


Walter C. Carter: I do not see in this bill any reference to lifting the ceiling on the amount to be lent. The minister has suggested that the ceiling will be lifted from $10,000 to $25,000. Therefore, I do not think that we on this side of the house can be accused of trying to hold up the bill when we ask that there be included in it those things the minister has stated. We have no desire whatever to make a liar of the Minister of Fisheries.


An hon. Member:: You will not be able to, either.


Walter C. Carter: The minister made a statement in Vancouver, and it is our great desire to see put into practice those things which he mentioned. We presume that what the minister said was correct and that he was speaking in his capacity as Minister of Fisheries. The minister said fishermen will be able to borrow $25,000 and the interest rate will be just 1 per cent above that paid by the government of Canada on its borrowings. We expect this principle to be included in this legislation. We expect that legislation will be drafted and put before the house to encompass the minister's suggestion and recommendations.
The minister made another interesting remark, namely, that the provisions of this act will be similar to those with regard to loans made under the National Housing Act, whereby people can borrow money with which to buy or build a new home. This is poor consolation to me, and I suppose to fishermen generally, certainly those on the east coast. I presume this measure also applies to fishermen on the west coast. I say this because the ceiling on the interest rate has been lifted from 5 per cent to an amount to be designated by the Governor in Council.
February 12, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act I believe that on loans under the National Housing Act, the interest rate is now 9| per cent. Surely, we do not expect fishermen to pay an interest rate of 9f per cent on loans made under this legislation. I hope the minister will clarify this point, because I am sure it is a matter of great concern to prospective borrowers from this fund.
In my opinion there are two areas of inconsistency in the legislation as far as the Minister of Fisheries is concerned. One is that there is no provision to increase the ceiling on loans made under the act from the present amount of $10,000. The second is that there is no provision in the bill whereby the government will set the interest rate to be charged on money borrowed under the legislation at 1 per cent higher than that which the government pays for its borrowings, although this was suggested by the Minister of Fisheries in his address in Vancouver on February 1.
I must say, in all fairness, that I do not think the minister deliberately tried to mislead the house. At least, I hope not. I would not like to think he would deliberately say one thing here and another thing for the benefit of his friends and the fishermen of British Columbia. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister will clarify this point when he closes the debate.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am quite happy for the fishermen of British Columbia, who are obviously in a position to avail themselves of these loans. But as far as the east coast is concerned, particularly my province of Newfoundland, this bill is simply another empty gesture on the part of this government. So far as the fishermen of the east coast, and particularly of Newfoundland, are concerned this legislation does nothing for them. In my opinion this is a cruel bill to the average Newfoundland fisherman because it tantalizes him with a prospect of something without holding out any hope of achieving it under existing conditions. Legislation such as this, carrying as it does the authority and prestige of the federal government, is nothing more than an open invitation to our east coast fishermen to plunge into debt over their heads. As I have said before, what the east coast fishermen need is not legislation such as this but legislation which would help them tackle the root of the problems that beset this industry as well as their own social problems.

Before we can honestly extend loan facilities to the people of my province, I think we must first bring them up to a position where they can usefully employ these loans. The government should devote its attention to assisting our east coast fishermen to improve their methods of operations, their fishing techniques and their means of marketing. What we need most is legislation that would assist our east coast fishermen and help to bring them into the twentieth century.
Since this parliament convened in September, my colleagues and I have, on numerous occasions, brought to the attention of the government and of the Minister of Fisheries in particular the desperate need for immediate assistance if we are to stave off the complete collapse of the Newfoundland fishing industry. We have repeatedly impressed on the government the importance of that industry to the economic life of the east coast of Canada, and in particular of Newfoundland, where almost one quarter of our population derives a living from that source, either directly or indirectly.
Despite what the previous speaker said a moment ago, I think that the uselessness of the present legislation in so far as the Atlantic provinces are concerned has been pointed out in a report that has been tabled for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1968 dealing with loans made under this legislation. In British Columbia 147 loans were made totalling almost $1 million, and I say more power to them if they can avail themselves of these loans and find a way to repay them. In Nova Scotia six loans were made, totalling a little over $150,000. In Prince Edward Island a number of small loans were made which totalled a little over $100,000. However, Newfoundland-the biggest fishing area in Canada and certainly a province whose economy is affected by the fishing industry more than any other province of Canada-did not receive one loan during that period. Indeed, since the inception of this legislation, out of a total of 2,586 loans totalling a little over $6 million, Newfoundland has received 18 loans which amounted to $23,000.
I ask you in all sincerity what further proof this government needs that this legislation is nothing more than a farce. It is completely useless and does nothing but make a real mockery of the fishing industry and the fishing problems on the east coast, and particularly in Newfoundland.
My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made reference to the fact that all the people of Newfoundland,
February 12, 1969

as well as those on the east coast, are anxiously awaiting a promised statement from the Minister of Fisheries wherein we hope he will outline the government's plan to assist the east coast fishing industry. I think the minister announced in this house that a statement will be forthcoming within a week or two. I can tell him now that in our opinion it is a very important announcement. We hope that the statement will not be delayed much longer, because many people are awaiting it. I do not wish to overdramatize the seriousness of the situation that exists on the east coast and in Newfoundland, but I would say that the future of the fishing industry in my province-and I presume the same situation exists in the other east coast provinces-is hanging in the balance.
If this government elects to ignore or to turn a deaf ear to our pleas, in my opinion the entire fishing industry in Newfoundland will collapse. You can imagine what a terrible indictment of the Canadian nation, and particularly of the present government, this will be. Unless this government comes forward with a worthwhile and practical plan to revitalize the fishing industry on the east coast and in Newfoundland, unless they come forward with a plan that will give our people a chance to attain the status of first class citizens, unless they can be given a chance to earn a decent living for themselves and their families and be able to stand tall and walk straight as first class Canadians, I suggest that the union between our two countries which was consumated on April 1, 1949 will be judged as a terrible mistake. I sincerely hope that this will not happen.
I made reference, as did my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, to a speech that was made by the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson) at a certain ball in St. John's. In Newfoundland we have learned not to take too seriously speeches made at these Liberal balls, especially by the Minister of Defence Production, but I hope he will clarify the remark which he made that the six Newfoundland members of the house were doing a lot of talking and getting little done. I hope he will indicate to the house, to us and to our people, that he is not expressing the feelings of his colleagues in cabinet; that they do not intend to penalize our constituents because they had the good sense to vote the way they did on June 25. Ordinarily, a statement such as the one made by the minister would worry me somewhat but, as I said, one does not take too seriously statements
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act made in Newfoundland by certain people. However, I would like the minister to say something to the effect that he is not expressing the feelings of his cabinet colleagues and that they do not intend to penalize our people because they voted the way they did on June 25.
o (3:40 p.m.)
I will expect the minister, when he sums up at the end of the debate, to explain why he would say one thing in British Columbia and another thing in this chamber in connection with the bill we are now discussing. I hope, also, that he will make the statement which he promised to make with regard to the government's plan to assist fishermen on the east coast. I cannot tell you how important that is, Mr. Speaker. The economic life of our province depends on the fisheries and on the assistance which may be forthcoming from the federal government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the minister rising. I would point out that the hon. gentleman has already spoken on third reading and, according to our rules, he has no right to reply at this stage. But if the house is prepared to give unanimous consent-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to answer several of the questions which have been raised by hon. members, particularly by those on the other side of the house. Words like "useless", "a farce", and "a mockery" have been applied not only to the bill before the house but also to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act itself.
It is true that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act will only help fishermen who are quite capable of fishing commercially, operating economically and surviving without a substantial subsidy. It does not provide a subsidy to anyone. It makes it easier for ordinary commercial establishments such as banks, credit unions and trust companies to lend money to viable fisheries operations. It is aimed at individual fishermen. It does not make loans available to companies. Since the act came into effect in 1955, roughly 2,400 fishermen have seen fit to take advantage of it because they were able to get loans on better terms and under better conditions than they could in any other way.
It has been pointed out that the large majority of these loans has been made to fishermen on Canada's west coast. This is mainly due to
February 12, 1969

Fisheries Improvement Loans Act the fact that there is no provincial loans board in British Columbia providing money at lower rates than are available under the federal act. It is also due to the fact that the fishermen on the west coast are not as heavily subsidized as are fishermen on the east coast.
The amendments proposed in Bill C-151 were outlined by me in Vancouver. I said to the fishermen in Vancouver that they would be able, within the next month or two, to borrow money through a wide range of commercial sources at lower interest rates than those paid by the largest corporations in the country. In a month or two they would be able to borrow at 7J per cent, which is less than the 8 per cent to 8J per cent which B.C. Packers have to pay for new money and only one per cent more than the cost of money to the federal government itself, which will be guaranteeing every loan made under the amended Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
This is what the act does. This is what the people of Canada are doing collectively. By lending their credit, they make loans available at lower rates of interest than would otherwise be charged. This is the main advantage of obtaining a loan under the act.
If a fisherman is operating in the Atlantic region he would be well advised to go to the provincial government, to one of the fisheries loans boards there which provide money at rates of interest which vary all the way from zero in the case of Quebec to a maximum of 6i per cent. These rates are less than those which will be charged in the near future when Bill C-151 becomes effective.
The provincial governments are able, through their lending agencies in the Atlantic area, to make loans available at preferable interest rates partly because of assistance they receive from the federal government. For example, Newfoundland gets, I believe, more than 60 per cent of its revenue directly from the federal government so, at its discretion, it can make loans available at lower interest rates to fishermen if it chooses. This is something each province should be free to do. In the case of the maritime provinces and Quebec, all are recipients of equalization grants from the federal government. They choose to do this sort of thing, but in my view it is not what the federal government should be doing, discriminating, in one part of Canada as opposed to another. I believe we should pass laws in this chamber which apply uniformly across the country and which bear equally on all Canadians. Then, through


equalization grants and other broad arrangements we can give provinces the opportunity to do what they like in their own areas. The existence of special provincial arrangements is the main reason why fishermen in the Atlantic region have not taken advantage of the act to the same extent as have fishermen on the west coast.
I have undertaken to introduce another bill dealing with different clauses in the basic act as soon as I possibly can. This bill will certainly deal with the maximum amount of the loan available to an individual fisherman. I understand that once Bill C-151 has been passed by this house in principle on second reading it is no longer possible to make an amendment on the report stage or on third reading with respect to matters which fall outside the specific clauses of the measure. Those clauses did not include the provision in the basic act which dealt with ceilings.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the minister not agree that this could have been done by unanimous consent? We are dealing with new rules and we are just feeling our way.


John (Jack) Davis: I am not expert on the rules. I sought advice from the proper authorities and they told me it was not possible. I accepted that advice. If I had not done so, and if I had attempted to bring in an amendment of the sort to which the hon. member has referred, I am sure I would have been ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker. So I am trying to do the right thing and bring in a bill incorporating important and advantageous changes in the act as soon as possible; I am committed personally to bringing in another bill which will include the clause dealing with the ceiling on individual loans.
I do not see there is anything to be gained by delaying the passage of this bill. At least, money will be available at rates of interest acceptable to the commercial establishments involved and money will begin to flow again. That much, at least, will be accomplished. In Newfoundland and the maritimes a wider range of institutions will be involved.
If money is available at better rates and on better terms from the provincial institutions, that is all to the good. But I think my department must take an initiative itself by publicizing the availability of loans under the federal act. The Department of Fisheries must itself endeavour to make the existence of this privilege known; it must make use of the fisheries officers, who are scattered across the country, to pass this information along.
February 12, 1969	COMMONS
I think this covers the questions which have been raised since I made my initial statement on third reading, Mr. Speaker.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Would the minister permit a question? In view of the time limits imposed on members of parliament in discussing legislation, may I ask the minister whether there is any valid reason for not incorporating the higher ceiling in this bill when it was prepared for presentation to the house. It seems to me that this would have been a much better course to follow, instead of making two bites at the one cherry.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


John (Jack) Davis: The hon. member does have a good point. He did say, however, that I prepared the legislation. I did not prepare it; it was prepared some considerable time ago in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson).
I now think we should make some other changes in the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. As a result of bringing this bill before the house and discussing the particular clause which I referred to the authorities we have improved our position in the government's timetable.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the house would the minister consider a further question. Would he tell the house what steps his department proposes to take to make the provisions of the bill applicable, or more acceptable if you like, to the provinces of Newfoundland and New Brunswick? I should like the minister to comment on this. It appears to me that it is the approved lenders who are at fault in that they discourage this kind of lending to fishermen. Perhaps some initiative could be taken to encourage approved lenders to make loans under this act. After all, it is a very serious matter that the province of Newfoundland cannot avail itself of this legislation, and I am wondering what the minister's department is going to do about it.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the fault lies partly with the government in that we have not publicized this legislation enough. Perhaps it also lies to a greater extent with the commercial lending institutions. For example, I understand that in Newfoundland there are not that many branch banks generally scattered throughout the province in the way that they are, for example, in British Columbia. So that as a result of limiting the legislation to banks only there are insufficient
DEBATES	5441
Pesticide Residue Contamination bank managers or facilities available in Newfoundland, to publicize and grant loans.
However, there is no hiding the fact that basically these are commercial rates of interest. The only difference between normal commercial rates and these rates is that these have the backing of the people of Canada, which does effectively reduce the rate to fishermen. But it does not reduce it to the degree it would have to be reduced under current circumstances to be of real interest to many fishermen in Newfoundland. I do not pretend that this particular act, especially in present times of high interest rates, will do a great deal for the fishermen in Newfoundland, because it will not.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration 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, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar) moved:: That clause 9(1) of the said bill be deleted and that the following be substituted therefor:
"9(1) Every person who, or whose employee or agent, violates any provision of this act is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."
He said: Mr. Speaker, speaking in support of this amendment may I say that I think the penalty proposed here is more severe than is required. Clause 9(l)(a) provides that any person who violates any provision of the act has committed an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for two years. I suggest that paragraph (b) provides adequate enforcement of the law.
In this day and age I do not think we should provide under this type of bill that a person be put in jail for two years, be branded as a criminal, photographed and fingerprinted, as would be the case under paragraph (a). During the committee sittings I asked why a penalty of this severity was incorporated in the bill. I could quote the answers from the evidence, but I do not think that is necessary. In general, the reply was that two years was the minimum term on an indictable offence. Another answer I received,
February 12, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination and which I thought was quite irrelevant, was that incarceration would be in a federal penitentiary, not a provincial jail. I got the impression that this sort of provision was standard form in this type of legislation, but this does not seem to me a sufficient answer.
In our discussions of the omnibus bill, we are carefully considering punishment and conviction and trying to relate the punishment to the behaviours and motives of the person who falls afoul of the law. In the bill we are considering this afternoon-actually we are considering two bills, C-155 and another bill to come before us-we are considering measures that even a few years ago would not have been necessary. However, they are required now because we are using pesticides in agriculture.
These pesticides are widely used in city and urban communities to control such ordinary insects as mosquitos and house flies. In the process of controlling them, there is the danger that people might use products they should not use, or use them inadvisedly. In addition, it is possible that manufacturers or distributors may release products inadvisedly. I doubt that anybody, whether he be user or manufacturer, would use or manufacture any product that he thought would damage the community at large or be hazardous to people in the vicinity. Under the spur of a profit motive, of course, a manufacturer will try to put out a product which will bring him a profit and which will be accepted in volume by the community at large. This is the sort of thing we are dealing with under this bill. I find it altogether unreasonable that farmers, manufacturers and distributors should be dealt with on the same basis as those who have committed assault, or robbed others.
e (4:00 p.m.)
A point was raised to this effect: an inspector might be abused while carrying out his duties under the act. From my interpretation of the information Mr. Newman gave the standing committee, an inspector who is assaulted or who suffers any injury has available to him his remedy in law. I confess I am at a disadvantage in presenting my argument since I have no training in law. All the same, my arguments are based on common sense. I do not think we ought to contemplate including in the provisions of this bill the punishment the government has included in it. In our society, unfortunately, we have to control individuals to a much greater extent than was
[Mr. GieaveJ
necessary some years ago. It may be necessary in future to impose severe punishments on those contravening the provisions of the bill. I do not know that it will be necessary, but neither does anyone else. At present I am in this position. Nothing that was said in committee or elsewhere convinced me that it is necessary to proceed against an offender under this bill by way of indictment and punish him by imposing a penalty of two years imprisonment. In Saskatchewan, we have had for a long time a number of weed control acts. I know, from personal observation, that when people were proceeded against for allowing obnoxious weeds to grow on their property it was touch and go whether they were guilty of anything other than-to use the vernacular-stumbling around and being incompetent.
I think those who will be proceeded against under this act may fall within that category. Certainly, I do not think any hon. member would wish to see a farmer, manufacturer or distributor charged with an indictable offence, photographed and fingerprinted. I, therefore, submit that hon. members ought to support the amendment. If in future the government feels it necessary to introduce a provision allowing for harsh punishment, well and good. But until then, let us take the punishment provision out of the bill.
On January 28, as reported in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture at page 373, Mr. Newman, who is listed as a legal adviser, said:
I believe that the provisions of the Identification of Criminals Act would come into effect and that the police would have the right to have the accused photographed and fingerprinted because he was charged with an indictable offence.
This is taking the matter too far. Farmers should not be so treated. We were told it was unlikely that such action would be taken. If that is so, why have the punishment provision in the bill? At page 381 of the same committee report the deputy minister, Mr. Williams, is reported as saying:
My understanding is that after this act is passed he will solely have this act, because he has no rights under any other act.
I will not labour the point, because it is fairly simple and easy to understand. The minister and the government have the right to bring new provisions before the house; but we are dealing with pesticides here and we ought to make certain that the rights of the individual are not impaired. We should not fall back on procedures reserved for other
February 12, 1969	COMMONS
offences. It must be remembered that we are trying to control the use of chemicals and before considering this punishment we ought to consider what methods we might adopt to persuade individuals not to infringe the provisions of this bill. Civil action might be contemplated. If someone disobeys the law, then his product ought to be seized, perhaps. Controls might be imposed on products manufactured in plants. Similar steps might be taken with regard to farmers. But do not approach manufacturers, farmers or distributors on the basis that if they disobey this law they are criminals and should be punished.


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak for a few moments to the amendment put forward by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Hon. members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are prepared to support his amendment.
I wish to speak about the workings of the committee that dealt with this measure and to say why it ought not to have been necessary to bring this amendment before the house at this time. We are operating under the new rules, Mr. Speaker, and at present we are dealing with one of the first pieces of legislation brought before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to be dealt with in accordance with the new rules. In that committee we were favoured, as in the past, by presentations of witnesses from the Department of Agriculture. They were called before the committee and answered all questions put to them by committee members about the matter being considered at that time. In fairness, we must pay special tribute to those officers of the department, not only for the concise and intelligent manner in which they answered all questions, but also for their patience in trying to assist us in every possible way to get at the root of the matter before us.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks with regard to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the part he played in the proceedings, even though there is no definite provision in the new rules that a minister must be in attendance at committee hearings. Over the past number of years it has been a bone of contention with members of standing committees that usually a minister appeared to make an official statement, then left and his departmental officials had the responsibility for the rest of the proceedings. These officials were unable to answer questions on policy and
DEBATES	5443
Pesticide Residue Contamination were compelled to stay strictly within the terms of the legislation or the departmental estimates, as the case might have been. We in the opposition have always felt this placed an unfair burden on the departmental officials. We were agreeably surprised to find that whenever it was possible, the Minister of Agriculture was inclined to appear before our committee, answer all questions directed to him, and speak on behalf of the government that he represents and the department that he has the honour to head.
Having said that, I would like to deal with the actual activity of the committee itself. I do not feel that it is necessary for an amendment of this type to appear before the House of Commons during discussion of the bill at the report stage. I cast no reflection on the hon. member who brought in the amendment. As a matter of fact, I commend him for his action, but if the standing committees of the house are to perform the duties that are expected of them then we should be able to solve differences of opinion in regard to the legislation before us within the committees. We should be able to introduce amendments, arrive at a consensus, so that the report to the house would deal with the very best piece of legislation a committee is able to provide for the citizens of the country.
Why was it necessary for this amendment to come before the house? In my opinion, it is the result of the partisan approach of government members to legislation in committees. I say this in a kindly way because I am sure all committee members are anxious to do the best job they can for the people they represent, for the country as a whole, and for their parties. I note that perhaps a lot of the difficulty in this instance was due to the fact that many government members on the committee were not old members of the house-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, and I am anxious to allow him as much leeway as possible in view of the fact that we are operating under new rules. I am sure the house would be interested in his comments, but it is a rule of the house that a member when speaking on an amendment should restrict his remarks to the amendment itself. I do not want to be unnecessarily harsh in the application of this rule, but I would ask the hon. member to come to the exact point before the house as quickly as possible.


Harold Warren Danforth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your point is very well taken. I am sure I
February 12, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination will have an opportunity on third reading of the bill to enlarge upon my contention in this regard. But, Mr. Speaker, I must contend that had the committee proceeded with its work in the fashion that every member expected, it would not have been necessary for us to deal with this amendment at this time. But since we were unable to proceed with the amendment in committee we, in this party must support the amendment at this stage. As the hon. member who preceded me so ably pointed out, it was not the intention of the government officials who drafted this bill, and I do not believe it was the government's intention, to make it mandatory that anyone breaking the provisions of this bill with respect to the use of chemicals in the production of agricultural products be charged with an indictable offence.
The use of pesticides and insecticides is bound to extend as new chemicals and preparations are discovered. There will be different methods used to apply pesticides and insecticides. This field of work will grow and grow. There will be many new methods used to apply chemicals. More and more individuals will be involved. Manufacturing processes will become more extensive. Applicator machines will grow in size and complication. By its very nature, this whole industry is bound to increase in size and complexity.
Although provision is made for the use of discretion with respect to launching criminal or civil actions, we think the indictable offence aspect should be eliminated from the bill. We believe that the summary conviction approach can provide the necessary protection that we all seek through this particular measure.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) is the same one that was moved in committee and defeated. I do not challenge his right to move it now, or to give notice that he would move it. However, I think the explanations that were given in committee should have persuaded him that many of the remarks he made in committee, and indeed many that he made in the house, this afternoon, were completely irrelevant to the bill.
The offences that could be created under Bill C-155 have nothing to do with the way that a farmer applies pesticides to his crops. That is dealt with in another bill. Of course,


the bill provides that in order to claim compensation the farmer must have used the pesticides in accordance with the recommendations on the label, and that sort of thing. The argument that under the terms of this bill a farmer could be charged with an indictable offence because of having inadvertently misused chemicals is simply not valid.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I had thought that was made clear to the hon. member and members of the committee when we were before the committee. However, the reason for including this provision in the bill, as is the case in respect of federal statutes of a similar nature is that we feel it is desirable that there exist an option to try offences by summary conviction or by indictment. If the proposed amendment should pass, it would be possible to proceed only by way Of a summary conviction for an offence under this bill. As the hon. member knows, the maximum penalty fur such an offence is limited by the Criminal Code to six months' imprisonment or a fine of $500 or both. In the case of corporations an increased fine would be possible but only to the extent of $1,500.
We feel that certain offences might occur which would warrant proceeding by way of indictment. This procedure would carry a potentially greater penalty than would be available under the provisions of the Criminal Code in respect of summary conviction. It should be noted that offences under this bill might include those similar in nature, as I said, to fraud and false pretences. Under the Criminal Code, such an offence in most cases would be punishable on indictment. The fact that an offence under this bill might also be dealt with in the Criminal Code does not affect inclusion of the provisions in the legislation to make the legislation as much as possible self-contained. These provisions specifically cover situations in which the Criminal Code might or might not apply.
It should also be noted that in a procedure by indictment an accused has the benefit of electing trial by jury, which of course he would not have under this bill if the amendment of the hon. member were accepted. Further, the maximum penalty of two years in respect Of an indictable offence is the lowest maximum that is available under the Criminal Code. In other words, the lowest maximum is what is being provided for an indictable offence. So, when the hon. gentleman makes the plea that we would be subjecting farmers who inadvertently misuse chemicals to a penalty of two years in jail, he
February 12, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination
is simply not stating the tacts of the case. I hope hon. members will take that into consideration.
I also think we should be clear on what the purpose of clause 9 is. The purpose is to provide what is required in all acts; that is, the offences and penalties. We certainly are not attempting to substitute this legislation for the duty of the court, which is to hear the evidence and pass a reasonable, fair and just sentence in line with the evidence that may be presented to it. I think it is perhaps presumptuous of the hon. member to suggest he can predict in advance what all the evidence and circumstances will be surrounding an offence and decide now that no one will be guilty of fraud or misrepresentation which may be deserving of a penalty of more than six months. Surely, we have more confidence in our courts than that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question on the amendment in respect of clause 9(1)? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the amendment please say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you call in the members may I draw to your attention Standing Order 75(11) which suggests that if there are two amendments to the same bill to be voted on at the report stage the votes could be held at the same time. In view of the fact that the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) has another amendment to this bill, I think it will probably meet the wishes of the house if this vote were deferred to ascertain whether it is necessary to have a division on that amendment as well.
The Aciing Spaeker (Mr. Bechard): Order. I apologize to the house. Pursuant to section (11) of Standing Order 75 the recorded division on the amendment now being considered stands deferred until all amendments proposed to this bill have been considered.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That Clause 13(3) of the said bill be deleted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in moving this amendment again is to give the individual or company the full protection of the law. 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.
I do not think a bill that has within it the provisions this one has should deny to an individual or a company the right to go to a court of law if such individual or company should be dissatisfied with their treatment. I think, necessarily in this society, we do control the actions of individuals; we do say to them, as can be said to them under this bill, that there is certain pollution on their property or that certain things have happened as a result of the use of pesticides and therefore the Department of Agriculture can move in and do certain things. Then, there is provision for compensation to the individual or company for the action the government has found it necessary to take. This bill does not state the rate of compensation which must be paid to the individual. During the course of the committee hearings I suggested the rate of compensation should be set; that is, that a certain minimum percentage should be established as a guide to the Department of Agriculture and as a protection to the farmer or company. It would not necessarily always be a farmer involved in this provision.
a (4:30 p.m.)
Under the act the farmer would immediately be entitled to a certain amount, but the amount decided upon would not be subject to appeal. Those responsible for guiding the committee suggested an appeal could not be allowed. They suggested the government should reserve unto itself the right by order in council to set the amount of compensation. Having reserved this right, the government has said in the final clause of the bill that it will not permit an individual or a company to go to court if the amount of compensation is felt to be unfair. We should not deny the right of an individual to his day in court. The right of appeal is a protection for an individual who feels he has been aggrieved or has not received justice.
Even in an act such as this, which in essence involves a civil procedure, we should not prevent an individual seeking recourse if he feels he has been wrongly used. In a complex society like this we must take action to control the individual and the company. At the same time, we should be careful not to
5446
February 12, 1969

Pesticide Residue Contamination limit their rights to obtain the kind of treatment they deserve as citizens.
If a rate of compensation were set this would make a difference, but I do not think the difference would be sufficient to deny an appeal procedure. I assume that an assessor would be appointed from the bench to hear appeals against decisions which had been made by the Department of Agriculture. We should not deny individuals the right to appeal such decisions to a court.
Individuals are bound by the rate of compensation set by the Department of Agriculture. I do not think it would happen, but it is conceivable that a compensation rate might be too low. In that event, through an appeal procedure, it might be found that the compensation was too low. Under this measure there would be no recourse even though it was obvious that the compensation was lower than that anticipated by this measure.
For these reasons, I think this proposed section should be deleted from the act. We should leave an individual or a company with the right enjoyed by other Canadians, that is, to appear before a court of law to settle a grievance or obtain justice.


Harold Warren Danforth: In speaking on this amendment let me assure the house that we in the official opposition will support the amendment referred to by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. We are of the opinion that this matter could have been decided at the committee stage. It is unfortunate that we in the opposition must, in every instance, make a final appeal to the house when we have what we consider to be a very good proposition to put forward.
The minister stated previously that the conditions embodied in many of these clauses can be found in many other legislative measures and that these are merely repetitions of regulations which have been in existence throughout the years. It is for this reason, among others, that we wish to see changes made, because we are not dealing with the past, but the future.
We can foresee drastic changes in the agricultural industry and allied industries. In the years ahead of us the operations of these industries will advance. Certainly, agricultural operations are very different today. The fact this bill is before us indicates that the government is aware of the drastic changes which have taken place already. We cannot accept the minister's contention that because these conditions exist in other legislative

measures, they should be incorporated in this bill.
I agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat that there should be a right of appeal in respect of conditions laid down or judgments rendered. We are not talking about a judgment of the court, but merely the decision of an appointed assessor. I am not suggesting such decisions will be unfair, but surely it is unnecessarily drastic to write into the bill that such a decision by an assessor is binding and that an individual or company will have no further recourse.
Surely, in this new and just society we are supposed to be creating government members should be anxious to support this right of appeal to an individual or a corporation which felt it had been aggrieved because compensation was not adequate. While this type of clause may be written into other measures, the fact that it curtails the right of appeal from the judgment of an assessor should indicate to hon. members that something is wrong. We are preventing by legislation this recourse in respect of decisions of this type.
We are entering an entirely new field of endeavour. The agricultural and chemical industries will undergo extensive changes in the future. The best we can accomplish by this legislation may prove to be wrong in a matter of months rather than years. I entreat members of the government to look favourably on the contention by opposition members that there should be a right of appeal.
In dealing with bills of this nature I am gravely concerned because there seems to be no avenue of appeal in respect of mandatory decisions taken by individuals, groups or government departments. This is indeed unjust and a practice which should be discouraged rather than encouraged.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) for implying that the government is looking to the future in proposing this legislation. It should be drawn to his attention and to the attention of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) that prior to the introduction of this act there was no provision at all under which compensation could be provided to a farmer who suffered a loss as a result of the use of pesticides. Furthermore, while some compensation is paid under other measures, there is no appeal at all against the
February 12, 19S9

Division
decision of the department, or the minister, if you like. Whatever is decided, there is at present no appeal against that decision. We are now providing for an appeal to an assessor. It seems to me that both hon. gentlemen missed the point completely in that they did not refer to clause 11 of the bill, which provides:
The Governor in Council may, from among the judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada and the superior courts of the provinces, appoint an assessor and such number of deputy assessors as he considers necessary to hear and determine appeals from compensation awards made under this act or under any other act to which this part is made applicable, and, subject to the provisions of this act, may prescribe their jurisdiction.
I think I should draw that clause to the attention of the house. Therefore, the assessors will be members of the Exchequer Court of Canada or the superior courts of the provinces. Surely, the hon. gentlemen missed the point completely when they said an appeal will not be heard by people who are competent in the courts, because this is the place from which the assessors will come. This is provided for in clause 11. As a matter of policy, we feel that inasmuch as appeals are to be heard by superior court judges-


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I would like tc-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Gleave) has risen to ask a question.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to point out, if I may, that in my speech I did say an appeal would be heard by a judge.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, as a matter of policy we feel that inasmuch as appeals are to be heard by a superior court judge appointed as an assessor to hear matters within very clearly defined and limited terms of reference, his decision should be final and conclusive to prevent the prolonging of proceedings.
What we are talking about here in so far as appeals are concerned is the rate of compensation. The maximum and the minimum will be set by order in council, not by the department. The appeal would be to an assessor who would be a judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of the superior courts of the provinces. These judges will hear appeals with regard to the amount of the assessment within the minimum and maximum set by
order in council. I think it would be superfluous to have further appeals from decisions of these judges because, as I have said, they will be taken from the superior courts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Those
opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Call in
the members.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? Next sitting of the house.




[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Alfred Pullen Gleave: That clause 11 of the said bill be amended by deleting from line 12 the words "or a justice".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I move the deletion of these particular words from the bill mainly because I was unable to get real clarification in the committee of what is involved here. I asked whether "justice" referred to a justice of the peace, and from the information I was given I understood it did refer to a justice of the peace.
I fail to see, in the circumstances in which we in Canada are living, why an information laid under this act should come before a justice of the peace for hearing. Clause 11 provides that:
A complaint or Information in respect of an offence under this act may be heard, tried or determined by a magistrate or a justice if the accused is resident or carrying on business within his territorial jurisdiction, although the matter of the complaint or information did not arise in that territorial jurisdiction.
I want to point out to the house the scope of this matter. In a recent issue of Country Guide it is pointed out that there are five

Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests counties in the province of Ontario which restrict movement of certain farm products and agricultural materials from one area to another. It is necessary to control the movement of such materials because they might carry the residues of certain plant pests.
In view of the wide application of this provision, I think that any person who is charged and tried under this act should appear before a competent justice or magistrate. I think the act should be crystal clear in stating that no individual should be brought for trial before a justice of the peace, who may or may not have a knowledge of the law. If we were back in the horse and buggy days when there might have been a problem connected with appearing before a fully trained and competent judge, then I could see the reason for this provision. The information I have is that in the province of Saskatchewan alone there are well over 500 justices of the peace. There is one in the market town in which I live. At the same time there is a circuit judge or magistrate who periodically comes to the town so that offenders against the law can be brought before him.
The reason I move the amendment is that I think offenders under this act should be brought before such a judge, and that the act should clearly say so. At the moment, it does not. If I may quote from the proceedings of the committee on January 28, as reported at page 426, the counsel for the Department of Agriculture said:
Mr. Chairman, there seems to have been a problem in the construction of clause 11. By using the words "magistrate or justice" it would seem that this would give jurisdiction to a justice to hear a charge laid under a clause of this bill or the regulations.
If that is so, then the question becomes one of definition: who is a justice? In asking that question in the committee I was given the clear understanding that a justice could be a justice of the peace, and as I say such a justice is not necessarily informed in the law. The report goes on:
It is possible-
The report says "Is it possible" but it must be "It is possible".
-that if the accused elects to have his case heard by a higher tribunal, the higher tribunal would have jurisdiction, but that would only be in the cases where there was procedure by way of indictment.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
As I said previously, I am not trained in the law, but I tjiink this matter ought to be
Tolmie
Trudel
Turner (London East)
Watson
Weatherhead
Whelan
Whiting
Yanakis-101.
February 12, 1969

Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests clarified. Where any person is charged under the provisions of the bill we ought to make certain that he is dealt with by a properly constituted court of law, by people competent to hear the charge against him. The person charged ought to be informed of his rights. If a person who is brought before a justice of the peace suffers a miscarriage of justice for one reason or another, he must appeal to a higher court at added cost. I do not think many will be charged under the provisions of this bill. If they are, it will be because they have acted inadvisedly rather than criminally. I say again, before passing this bill we must make certain that a charge against an individual or a company is brought in a properly constituted court of law in Canada. I need say no more. That was the purpose in moving my amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the government, too, that all cases shall be heard before a proper court. The words the hon. member seeks to delete, "or a justice" are standard and found in many federal statutes. Clause 11, which the hon. member seeks to amend, confers territorial jurisdiction on a magistrate or justice of the peace to hear proceedings in respect of offences under a statute. If the proposed amendment to clause 11 carries, the resulting situation would be that only a magistrate would have jurisdiction to deal with offences under the act. As a practical matter, in most areas of Canada such offences would be tried by a magistrate, in any event. However, there are certain areas in the country where a magistrate with jurisdiction is not always available and a justice of the peace would be the only person who could hear proceedings. If clause 11 were amended and the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace deleted a situation could arise where no magistrate would be available to deal with offences under the act. It should be noted, in any case, that where a justice of the peace-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Will the minister permit a question? In what areas of Canada would a magistrate not be available?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I answer the question after I have finished my explanation as to why we need clause 11 the way it is. May I proceed from where I left off, Mr. Speaker? It should be noted that, in any case, where a justice of the peace deals with proceedings against an

accused, the provisions of the Criminal Code respecting appeals from and review of such proceedings would be applicable to safeguard the rights of the accused. At the present time there is no indication that such provisions in existing acts are producing unjust or harmful effects. Therefore, the hon. gentleman here is asking us to change normal procedures. They are procedures which have their root in the Department of Justice. This is not the proper time for the hon. gentleman to bring forward his amendment. I do not question his right to try to move the amendment; nevertheless, since it seems that he is complaining about the way courts may handle offences, his remarks ought to be addressed to the Department of Justice. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those in favour of the amendment will please
say, yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: In my
opinion, the nays have it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I
declare the motion lost, on division.
Amendment (Mr. Gleave) negatived on division.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That Bill C-154, an act to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, on Wednesday, January 29, 1969 be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: When shall this bill read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: At
the next sitting of the house.
February 12, 1969



CRIMINAL CODE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know who pulled the fuse last night. It would have been easier for me to finish my speech last night. Still, I suppose there are sneaky people in all walks of life and they may not appreciate that what some take seriously is really a matter of philosophy.
Last night I spoke about abortion, endorsing the idea that later we shall put forward an amendment which would remove the abortion section from the Criminal Code. I support the idea for these reasons: I do not believe that three months after conception the foetus is alive in the sense of being a human being. During that period an abortion ought to be treated as any other medical problem is treated. A woman seeking an abortion ought to be viewed by a doctor as he would view a woman seeking to have her tonsils out. The decision to perform the abortion rests entirely with the medical practitioner, who may or may not be willing to perform it. Of course, he may or may not be willing to take a woman's tonsils out or to remove her appendix. That is entirely up to him. The doctor, of course, must decide whether the woman seeking an abortion has a medical problem.
I wonder where our medical practitioners have obtained statistics showing that in a population of 5 million people-I presume these are people with children-half a million abortions a year can be expected. There are those who, for religious reasons, do not think the abortion section should be removed from the Criminal Code. I suggest, if they are honest members of parliament, honest with themselves and the society they live in, they will concede that their religious convictions are forcing them into a position which is out of touch with the realities in our society and which, in the final analysis, contravenes the concepts of their religion. They have an obligation to give some consideration to this matter. If they do so, I believe many of them will
Criminal Code
eventually support the removal of the abortion section.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I also spoke about the problem of homosexuality, and said the government was making a sincere effort to remove from the Criminal Code the sections concerning homosexuality and substitute the right for two consenting adults to engage in homosexual practices. This is a step that has been taken by most modern societies. Our proposals stem from the Wolfenden report in England, and the legislation in that country based on that report has served it well.
I have been asked about some statistics I used. I hasten to say I may not have been misquoted but I certainly left the wrong impression if I said that ten per cent of the population in Ottawa is made up of homosexuals. I think some sections of our population might reach that level, and I leave it up to hon. members to ascertain for themselves where that might be. However, I would like to quote several statistics because the question has been asked, is this only true of Ottawa. I would like to quote from an article by a Toronto Telegram staff reporter, entitled "Society and the Homosexual". A lot of the information contained in it is based on evidence produced by Dr. K. G. Gray, professor of Forensic Psychiatry at the University of Toronto, one of the outstanding authorities in this field. The article begins:
Indoors, outdoors and all around the town certain citizens live with an eye on the law and a mind on sexual practices that commit them to a shadow world.
It's the world of the homosexual.
The Toronto Forensic Clinic-to which psychiatric cases are referred by the courts-believes there are 15,000 active male homosexuals in the metropolitan area alone, plus another 150,000 who are latent or bi-sexual.
This deviate population is swelled by 6,000 lesbians and 30,000 other women who live outwardly heterosexual lives but are sporadic or latent homosexuals.
This is a subject that deserves some consideration. Now, I wish to quote from another part of the article where, in reference to the John Howard Society, the author wrote:
The society told me: Depending on the size of the prison, homosexuality can run anywhere from 80 to 40 per cent.
The homosexual problem in our prisons is a very large one. Over the years I have been making recommendations that prisoners be allowed conjugal visits with their wives and

February 12, 1969
Criminal Code
families. If we were not as backward looking in our society, this is a step that we would take. Countries like Mexico allow conjugal visits in prison, not as we might allow them in Canada on the basis of a reward, but as a right. There are few things a Mexican prisoner can do that will result in his losing that right.
The question is then asked, well, what do we do for single prisoners. This is something that would have to be considered seriously, but I have no objection to prostitutes being used in prisons if this does not offend their sensitivities. Society should do something to prevent people leaving prisons as latent homosexuals. Anyone who buries his head in the sand and says that nothing can be done to cope with this problem in prisons is not aware of the families that have suffered or the broken homes that have resulted after prisoners have been released.
At the very least we should have a system whereby prisoners are let out for weekends for a number of months before their sentence is up. In that way they can adjust to living with their families again. Just imagine the problem it is for a man to leave a prison after being a homosexual for ten years or even five years, and then have to live with his wife and family. These people are not homosexual in the true sense of the word. They are bi-sexual.
Any element of society closely contained within itself, such as boys' schools, seminaries, and the navy, where men are kept in constant close proximity, sees the development of many bi-sexuals. I think we should consider this problem and be far-sighted enough to try and solve it in our penitentiaries. Under these amendments to the Criminal Code provision is being made to eliminate some of the problems encountered by persons serving penitentiary sentences. I believe this is another problem that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should consider as the proponent of a just society, particularly if he is really interested in reclaiming those who are not normal in our present society.
Earlier today somebody asked me, why do things happen such as happened in Montreal just yesterday. The simple answer is that these things happen now because a large number of people are not able to exercise their bent in other directions. The young people leading many of the violent rebellions nowadays are the same young people we

pinned all the medals on 25 years ago. They are the ones who captured the trench when no one else was willing to put his head out. They are the ones who flew airplanes and shot down a number of hostile aircraft. These are the people with whom we are now having trouble.
While there are many things in this bill that are worthwhile, I repeat that there are many things not included in it. Last night I picked up the paper and read of 15 or 20 offences in the city of Toronto which the R.C.M.P. were prosecuting. These cases involved marijuana. Marijuana is not a narcotic. There was an awful fuss when it was first put on the world narcotic list because some countries did not believe it was a narcotic. But countries that produced cocaine and heroin said that if marijuana were not included, they would not sign the international accord.
Very little research has been done on marijuana. I would venture to say that in most cases it is not as dangerous as alcohol. It is less dangerous than L.S.D., and it is probably not much more dangerous than smoking tobacco. The world looks pretty grim until one has a first cigarette and then it looks better. I know some housewives who find that the world looks pretty bad in the morning. I will not say that they should be kicked out of bed, but I do know that sometimes it is very difficult to talk to them until they have that first cup of coffee. This is also a drug. Caffein is a very serious problem now. Anyone who has a heart condition knows the effect of caffein. Marijuana also has its effects; there is no question about that, but we have done very little work on this. Yet we have the R.C.M.P. chasing the high school kids. I am told that in some of the high schools 40 per cent or 50 per cent of the children use marijuana. I have discussed this with the kids, and I am not at all sure the percentage is that high. The children can tell you who is pushing it. Yet the R.C.M.P. run around and therefore the kids who otherwise would not touch it want to try it. I tried it years ago, and in my opinion it is a very bad smoke. It tastes terrible. It has a very bitter smell, and is not worth the price.
[DOT] (5:40 p,m.)
I am told that one must smoke marijuana for a while before it tastes better. It is pretty bad. It is worse than some of the brands of cigarettes I could name. The reason many
February 12, 1969

kids are taking marijuana today is that the pushers are adding heroin to it. This is being done in my riding. The pushers give the kids the cigarette and sometimes these kids do become hooked on marijuana because of the additives. This is the field to which we should be paying attention. I am not suggesting how we should handle this. But I suggest that we allow the sale of marijuana at cost. I remember a few years ago when the Indians on a reservation decided to grow about 16 acres of marijuana. It took the Mounties two weeks to get rid of that with a scythe. I am not sure why the Indians grew it. Maybe they did not know what it was. Perhaps we should encourage some farmers to grow marijuana, purify it and sell it.
I think we should examine this whole subject. It is not good enough to continue following a report of 40 or 50 years ago when by some kind of agreement marijuana was included with narcotics. There are many things which should be written into this bill. In closing, I should like to suggest that members of the house continue to bring forward private members' bills. The government is not brave; it is the individual members who must be brave. I can think back to a bill I had drafted along the lines of the Wolfenden report on the matter of homosexuality. I had to wait until there was an atmosphere of public opinion about this matter before I could introduce that bill; otherwise I would have been crucified. That time never came. There was not an opportunity to consider it. I had no intention of introducing it without some feeling. It would be necessary to have public support and interest before such a bill could be introduced.
It is necessary that there be some kind of public attention or some kind of vehicle by which members can bring forward bills in the social field. I hope that private members will continue to bring forward their ideas on such matters as wiretapping, safety factors in respect of automobiles and so on. Sometimes these things in themselves are not popular but the situation changes when the matter is discussed by the news media. I give great credit to the news media for the work they have done over the years. I remember articles which have been published over the years, particularly by papers such as the Vancouver Sun. I remember the studies the Vancouver Sun made into the matter of conjugal visits to penitentiaries, and a great deal of money was spent to obtain reports in this field. This
Criminal Code
newspaper did a great deal of work in informing the people in its area about this matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take up too much time. I should like to say that this matter of developing ideas is very important. I am sure every member in this house has a thought or an idea about something which he considers is not right in our society. In a just society, we must not depend on one man. His environment is somewhat limited, as is everyone's environment. I would hope that hon. members would bring forward new ideas and, if they are not dogmatic in their discussion of these ideas, very shortly the public will begin to collectively bring forward new ideas. After the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has had time to consider the position of the amendments he has made, and the argument put forward by hon. members on all sides of the house, I am sure he will bring forward regularly and periodically new amendments to the Criminal Code that will eventually make Canada one of the foremost countries in the world in respect of our treatment of our people and the creation of a just society.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to speak on the bill under consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we have not seen a bill presented in such a bad way for a long time. As a matter of fact, it contains fifteen or so various clauses which should be studied separately. They were all thrown together in the same bag to make us pass as a package deal a most important piece of legislation, since it deals, inter alia, with abortion and lotteries.
Some hon. members object to abortion, while others agree to that part of the bill related to lotteries. It is therefore quite difficult to vote on a measure made up of such unrelated matters.

February 12, 1969
Criminal Code
That is why I ask the minister concerned to divide the bill so that every hon. member may cast a free vote.
I ask for a free vote for all hon. members, because I know very well that some members of the government are not too favourable to the adoption of this bill and would like to vote according to their own conscience. We are asking it also in the interest of the people of Canada.
The bill now before us is of the utmost importance. Some of the subjects it deals with are very important because they are related to the very substance of the nation and because human rights are at stake.
When one wants to speak about a subject as complex and serious as divorce, one must be fully aware of the facts.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
If we want to get a wholesome society, its components must be wholesome too.
In my opinion, on introducing a bill such as this one, unless we take into account the very essence of life or the technical or moral sense of the bill, we cannot take an outright and sincere decision.
Once more, the society that we advocate must be wholesome, and those who legislate must be well aware of it. However, the legislation that is being considered has a very great importance whatever some hon. members may say.
It seems as if some people think that this is not important, but the survival or the disappearance of society in general is at stake.
This is what our discussion is about and we have to come to a decision. We must speak our minds, according to our conscience in the light of our Christian moral principles.
Man needs a number of specific and concrete liberties which will give him the means of controlling his destiny. These are the freedom of action, freedom to go wherever he wants, not only within his country but abroad as well to live with his fellow human beings.
It is also the freedom of thought, of expression, of writing, of publishing, of assembly, of discussion with this fellow-men, of choice of school, occupation, place of abode, work and even of mate.
Anything that is imposed in these fields affects adversely human respect and brings into society a factor of disorder. The use of
[Mr. Latulippe.l
these freedoms is limited not in the use of freedom by somebody else, but by the obedience of all to a common rule: respect for man.
Among the nations, some are small, others are old, weak, powerful, wise or unruly. However, each one is entitled to respect, for in its own way, it is necessary to humanity.
As in the case of individuals, Mr. Speaker, each nation aspires to a comfortable life and to expansion according to its own vocation and characteristics. To govern is to provide, to think and to act. For the government of a nation, the necessary uniformity of thought and action cannot be realized by one mind. Under certain circumstances, the government of a nation could be the responsibility of one individual. On the other hand, the right to legislate is the responsibility of several individuals.
We are, at the present time, in the process of legislating and enacting legislation which will result in serious consequences for the future of society. Legislation is the result of a considerable number of actions and reactions between the requirements of the nation and those of its citizens. It involves lengthy studies, confrontations and syntheses which must be weighed and compared. Consequences of legislation must be foreseen and this necessitates team work. Our parliamentary team must adopt legislation, look forward to the future, take decisions and stimulate the development of the entire nation.
Enacting legislation is the responsibility of experts indeed, provided they are legal experts and professionals. Evidently, the legislative body is guided by those in professional and technical fields.
Legislation must be enacted according to characteristics of environment and must reflect the image of society. In fact, society is not only a consensus of lawyers; it represents all types of organizations. In short, it represents all the fields of activities or the whole of the concentrated bodies of the country.
In modern society, the state tends to regulate and govern everything. As a tidal wave, it is invading every field of public and private activities. It goes so far as to penetrate the minds in order to influence, to compel and to destroy them. It leads the way to paralyzing and stifling legislation.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
February 12, 1989



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm the business of the house for tomorrow. It is our intention to call again the matter that we are dealing with at the moment, item 40, the omnibus Criminal Code bill. I think there is a general understanding that if this should reach a culmination tomorrow the house will not expect the Minister of Justice
Business of the House to reply but rather that he will make a statement to the committee and perhaps during the later stages of consideration in the house.
Let me also indicate to the house that on Friday, though this is subject to further confirmation, we will call item 25, Bill C-138, an act to amend the Bretton Woods Agreement which was reported today, the evidence on which I believe is now in the hands of hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 13, 1969