1969-04-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of ithe Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the house of a change in the arrangements for control to offshore destinations of copper in refinery shapes. Since November, 1965 copper in all forms has been under control by the authority granted under the Export and Import Permits Act. However, in the case of refinery shapes permits have been issued on a yearly basis valid for multiple destinations.
The change that we contemplate has been brought about by the fact that over the past several months the London Metal Exchange price for copper has continued at a significantly higher level than the North American producer's price. This continuing price differential has intensified interest on the part of some of the copper concentrate producing mines, which have their concentrates smelted and refined in Canada, to sell their resultant copper at the London Metal Exchange price. These mines have traditionally sold a portion of their refined copper in Canada at the North American price.
Current conditions in 'the industry are such that there is a danger the continuing higher overseas price would attract away from Canada some of the normal and reasonable supplies of copper required by our copper consuming industries. In order to prevent this happening, several meetings have been held with the various sectors of 'the Canadian copper industry. I continue to hope that the industry will find its own solution to this problem. I consider it desirable however to
make clear at this stage the action the government will take should a shortage in the supply of copper, traditionally available in the usual way for our users, develop in Canada.
If a legitimate shortage of copper for the Canadian fabricating industry occurs and is substantiated we will, under the authority of the Export and Import Permits Act, take the following steps:
1.	Withdraw or withhold export permits for refinery shapes;
2.	Ensure that Canadian fabricators of rod and wire products return all new bare copper scrap generated in their operations through normal trade channels to Canadian refineries for conversion or exchange for primary copper;
3.	Ensure that the Canadian brass mills arrange for the return to their own mills of all useable scrap generated in their customers' operations.
These measures would be taken to the extent and degree necessary to ensure the reasonable requirements of Canadian copper users on a competitive basis.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be some questions later on arising out of the minister's statement. I would like to make just one point at the moment, and that is that I emphasize the importance of the government taking whatever Steps prove to be necessary in due and adequate time to prevent a very substantial copper shortage from developing in this country, impeding the normal operations of our economy and perhaps resulting in very substantial inflationary pressures within the country.
In a minute my hon. friend from Peace River may have something to say about the lumber industry in which there has been a very substantial increase in prices of certain lumber products arising from a very substantial shortage of supply in relation to demand.
While I share the views of the minister and hope that the industry will work this problem out itself, I also hope that the minister will act in adequate time to make sure that the Canadian economy and the Canadian people are protected.
April 1, 1969

Copper Supply for Canadian Use


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, with this announcement the minister gives an example of the power of the government when it chooses to exercise its power. There is no question that there is more than just a veiled threat contained in his statement. He intends business. He intends that no copper shortage will develop in this country. He is insisting that the industry act in the best interests of Canada, and in this case to ensure that a supply is maintained.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
This has not always been the case. There have been instances in which this country, one of the major producers of copper and nickel, has faced severe shortages while the raw material was being exported to the markets of the world. This was an intolerable situation which should not have been allowed to continue.
There are other points which are not answered in this statement. I hope the minister will be frank with us and state what kind of rebuffs he received from the industry. He obviously would not be taking this action unless there had been an indication that the industry was not prepared to co-operate.
We should also know the extent to which representation has been made to the Canadian government by North American users of copper, particularly in the United States. I hope there will be a frank reply from the minister in this regard.
The shortage of copper internationally gives Canadians a lever that we should use. In the past we have been critical of the fact that we have been little more than hewers of wood and drawers of water, to the detriment of our secondary industry. Now that there is a shortage it should be made clear that the top priority for our raw materials should go to manufacturers within Canada.
The minister may have to go beyond some of the things contained in this statement and consider an export marketing board perhaps comparable to our Wheat Board, so that our raw materials will be marketed through a board rather than through private companies in order to ensure that we have the maximum use of our own resources for the future development of secondary industry in Canada.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: First of all, I wish to thank the minister who has kindly sent me a copy in French of the statement he has just made in the house.

He has just announced that due to a serious shortage of copper throughout the world at the present time, prices have risen markedly on the London metal exchange. He has also said that Canadian producers are interested in exporting to that market as they can get better prices there than in North America.
Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, this is the first time that we are faced with a copper shortage in peacetime, and the minister has made three suggestions to deal with the problem.
The first would be to withdraw export permits for refinery shapes.
Mr. Speaker, if war broke out tomorrow morning, I do not think the minister would have to use the first solution. He would rather ask for the discovery and operation of new mines to produce the copper needed.
Instead of withholding or withdrawing export permits, the minister should, in cooperation with his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand), promote prospecting if there are not enough mines. In fact, the minister could visit my riding where I could show him many good spots for copper mining. If that metal is really in short supply in the country and in the world, I think a good way to fight present unemployment conditions would be to open new mines and give jobs to the unemployed.
That is why I think that instead of restricting these export permits for mining companies getting a better price somewhere else, some new mines should be developed in order to increase production of this much sought after mineral.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the government has been following closely recent developments in the building materials market in Canada and has taken particular note of the increasing cost of lumber and plywood. The price of lumber and plywood has responded to increased demand in the domestic and export markets during a period when weather conditions prevented the industry from maintaining an adequate supply of basic materials.
I have examined log exports, which have been under control by the authority granted under the Export and Import Permits Act
April 1, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES	7357
and have found that roundwood exports are nominal and that Canada was in fact a net importer of logs last year. Recent action initiated by the government of British Columbia in co-operation with British Columbia industry would suggest that the volume of log exports will be still lower in 1969. I am satisfied that effective control is being achieved under the act.
In a situation of strong demand in relation to supply it is important that the longer term interests of the industry in domestic and foreign markets is not prejudiced by short term market considerations. Given the importance of our domestic requirements for housing and other purposes and our long standing export connections, I look to the industry to safeguard the requirements of traditional customers, both domestic and foreign, and resist any tendency to neglect the Canadian market in favour of speculative short term export demand.
Following consultations with certain cabinet colleagues, a number of steps have been taken to ameliorate the situation. Representation has been made to the railways by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) urging that an adequate supply of railway cars be made available for the movement of wood products. The Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) is presently discussing with the provincial governments concerned the question of additional supplies of timber to be made available to industry until such time as a more stable supply/demand balance is achieved. I have also been assured by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) that his department will be alert to any threat of anti-competitive developments in the prevailing special market circumstances.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, because of the high regard we all have for the minister and because he has to labour under a tremendously heavy burden, having to answer to this house in connection with the problems of marketing and transportation of wheat, I struggled desperately to try to find something nice to say about the minister's statement and to be neutral, but try as hard as I could I found it impossible to do so.
This is one of the most innocuous statements we have had the pleasure of hearing in this house for some time. What the minister is in fact saying is that the sky is blue, God is1 in His heaven, the Liberal party will govern the country, wait a little while and everything will be fine.
Lumber and Plywood Price Stabilization


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not find much
enthusiasm in that patter of applause on the other side. What we have seen is a demonstration of the absolute inability of this government to cope with the serious problems that are facing us.
Some time ago the government set up the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce, and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) indicated in his statements, by implication, and in the legislative orders which were advanced that all of these problems about pricing would be brought within the control of the federal government. The statement made by the minister has been produced in response to a number of questions by various hon. members of the opposition that deal with the price and supply of logs and the price and supply of lumber. These questions were addressed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
This is the answer we have been given to take back to our constituents. It suggests that the whole thing is a fagade; that we have nothing at all that will in any way deal with these very serious problems of high prices that affect this country, particularly in relation to housing. I only wonder that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) did not get into the act and give us his views in the matter.
We on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, are bitterly disappointed. We feel there has been no adequate answer given, and that despite all the high promises made by all ministers, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, this government seems to have no power at all to control the increasing escalation of prices in this country.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to begin, my very brief comments by asking why the minister had produced this statement at all. It seems to me that it would have been better had he waited until some of the steps that he says have been taken produced some results about which he could inform the house, instead of making this kind of shadowy statement that really says very little.
We are concerned about two matters referred to in the statement. One of them is the export of logs, which has resulted in unemployment on the west coast. The fact is that there is still some short time in some
7358	COMMONS
Lumber and Plywood Price Stabilization sawmills in British Columbia. To the extent that unemployment has been reduced it has, of course, been due to changing weather conditions, which have enabled the resumption of logging operations on a much larger scale. This has produced more logs for the mills. But it is still' a fact, which I ascertained only a few minutes ago from the people who head the loggers union on the west coast, that a number of mills are reduced to one shift a day and are still working short time. So nothing has in fact been done to meet this part of the problem. When the minister says1 in his statement, with a naivety and disingenuousness that really is surprising, that he looks to the industry to safeguard the requirements of traditional customers, he really cannot be very serious in suggesting that an industry which has failed to do these things will suddenly be chastened by a remark made by the minister in a statement to this house.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
The second factor with which this house and the country are concerned is the increasing price of timber, affecting directly the cost of housing. It is perfectly clear to anyone who has studied the matter at all-and I do not claim to have studied it more than a little- that the rate of increase in the price is not due to increased costs or any other justifiable reason. The increase is due merely to the fact that the demand is very great and the operators and corporations involved are getting what the traffic will bear. This is something our kind of society ought not to permit, and something our kind of economy cannot afford.
When we look at the last paragraph of the statement we find that the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry is presently discussing with the provincial governments concerned the question of additional supplies of timber to be made available to industry. In view of this statement I have a right to ask how it is intended to make this additional timber available. I have a right to ask, at what price, under what conditions, by what arrangements, for what use? This is really almost an insulting kind of statement, namely to tell the house that there is discussion about making more timber available, without any facts surrounding it at all.
I am pleased to hear that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will be vigilant with regard to increases in price and anti-competitive developments in this regard. But the fact is that prices have risen without justification and that action should have been taken before now. I congratulate the minister

DEBATES	April 1, 1969
on a statement which is soft in words and even softer in meaning.


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for making available to us a French copy of the statement he just made. However, we are still puzzled and we are somewhat embarrassed to comment.
One might wonder if we are not back in Europe or in England, or if there is a war on, because everybody is gone and it is impossible to work. Is there a shortage of lumber or of materials? What are we short of?
I must point out to the minister and to the government that what has been lacking is planning. When we consider that in 1966, 1967 and 1968-and I have figures to prove this- lumber yards in Montreal and all Eastern Canada had great difficulties to sdll their lumber, and now we are being told that Canada is importing roundwood and logs.
Has the department responsible for ensuring the mobility of workers given up its task? Is planning related to building materials made in universities or in an ivory tower? One may wonder where that will lead us.
As far as our party is concerned, there are no congratulations to offer to the minister as to the existing planning. In fact, we lack money and several other things. If we have a surplus of raw materials that we cannot exploit how will we be able to make profits?
I would like to draw the minister's attention to that situation for, in my opinion, it should not arise every year. I suggest that a good device to give work to our unemployea people, once and for all, would be to do some planning for more than a year in advance-



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: As has been mentioned several times in the house, there have been discussions about the prospect of referring to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the most recently tabled annual reports of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways. I believe there might be agreement to accepting an order somewhat along the following terms without debate. With the consent of the house I would move:
That the annual reports for 1967 of the Canadian National Railways and of the Canadian
April 1. 1969

National Railways Securities Trust and the auditors' report to parliament on the accounts of the Canadian National Railways system for 1967, all tabled on September 16, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
That the annual report for 1967 of Air Canada and the report to parliament of the auditors on the accounts of Air Canada for 1967, tabled March 14, 1968, be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there agreement for the minister to make the motion?


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion can be submitted to the house only by unanimous consent. There is not unanimous consent. I regret that the motion cannot be put.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. It is my understanding of the rules that if an hon. member or hon. members refuse unanimous consent, one may ask that the name or names be divulged.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not my understanding of the rules.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there are several matters relating to the election law that should be dealt with by parliament in this session. I should like to put before the house a suggestion as to how we might proceed.
Under the British North America Act a general election must be held by June 25, 1973. I understand that the Chief Electoral Officer will need upwards of 24 months between the time any extensive changes are made in the act and the time when the writ for an election is issued. This time is needed for the preparation, printing and distribution of the necessary forms and papers and for the instruction of election officers. Assuming that the next election is to take place at the last possible date-and that would be extraordinary-this means that the act should be ready about two years from now. I believe that hon. members in all quarters would want the act to be ready far sooner than that. I mention this point because it bears directly on how we should deal with the matters relating to the election law.
Canada Elections Act
Hon. members will recall that in 1963 the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections made an extensive study of the act, but whether or not, and how, some of the more important changes then considered could be made was found to depend almost entirely on the method to be used in the preparation of the lists of electors. Consequently, to secure adequate information on alternative methods of preparing the lists, a section was included in the Representation Commissioner Act to provide for the preparation of a report on that subject. That report was submitted to the Speaker in April 1968.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
Four general elections have taken place since the revision of the Canada Elections Act in 1960. Undoubtedly there are changes which hon. members will wish to propose. Moreover the Chief Electoral Officer probably will have a number of improvements in the details to bring forward for consideration. Then there is the report of the Committee on Election Expenses made to the Secretary of State in 1966.
Finally, there is the statutory requirement that a review of the Representation Commissioner Act be proposed in the first session of parliament after 1968. It is my suggestion that since it was found in 1963 that any fundamental change in the method by which the lists of electors are prepared might require almost an entirely new act, we ask the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to deal first with the question of the method of preparing the lists.
It might be thought that the next step should be an examination of the proposed changes in the law relating to election expenses. However there is the time factor that I have mentioned already. I understand also that it would be possible to make changes in the election expenses provisions of the Canada Elections Act by a separate statute, and that these could be brought into effect without disrupting the time-consuming preparations which must be made by the Chief Electoral Officer. For this reason my suggestion is that after it has dealt with the method by which the lists are to be prepared, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be asked to review the remainder of the act, exclusive of those sections relating to election expenses.
The next step, the third step, will be for the committee to deal with the election expenses proposals. Fourth, and finally, it would be called upon to deal with the review

April 1, 1969
Canada Elections Act
of the Representation Commissioner Act required under section 22 of that Act.
The hon. member for the Yukon has suggested that the Dominion Controverted Elections Act should be considered by the standing committee. I believe that to be a good suggestion and I am prepared to make an appropriate motion. However I should hope that the committee could deal with this act in a way which would not delay its work on the other business referred to it.
I would propose therefore that an appropriate order to this effect be discussed during the recess with the house leaders of the various parties, and that upon our return after the Easter adjournment we should make an order of reference along the lines of the timetable I have indicated, so that the Committee on Privileges and Elections may consider these various matters.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be agreed throughout the house that this is a very important subject matter and one upon which action should be taken as early as possible by way of consideration, since it relates of course to the very foundation of our democracy. I certainly accept the suggestion, as I am sure will all hon. members, that the matters referred to should be referred to the committee as soon as possible after we return following the Easter recess. The suggestion which the minister has made with respect to the order of priorities appears to me to be reasonable, with this qualification-I doubt whether these matters can be treated in quite such watertight compartments as he seems to envisage. In other words, I doubt whether the committee can adequately consider these matters m a vacuum.
I would suggest that the possible necessity of considering the inter-relation of these various aspects, of our election procedures ought to be given further consideration before any attempt is made to place before the house a resolution which might unnecessarily tie the hands of the committee in an unfortunate way. I believe this matter should be considered very seriously. There can be no question that the subject matter to be discussed is going to take a lot of time and a lot of consideration. The report of the committee established to deal with election expenses and the reports of provincial committees which have been received or published since the report of the committee appointed by this house will require very careful consideration. These are matters which will occupy the full attention of members of the house.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
I hope every effort will be made to permit as full and free a consideration of these matters as possible and, if I may say so without offence, that the government will not attempt to control the thought of the house or the committee in any way by the adoption of preconceived ideas as to what kind of reforms should or should not be undertaken. I certainly agree that the question should be proceeded with promptly, but I do caution the house about assuming too easily that these questions can all be fitted into isolated compartments, as the President of the Privy Council has indicated.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We appreciate the fact that the President of the Privy Council has outlined his thinking with regard to the important matters which relate to our election machinery. I may say to him that we will be quite prepared to participate in discussions during the Easter recess as to any order of reference which might be made when we come back on April 14.
There are however one or two things which I think should be said at this time. I am glad the President of the Privy Council, although he said the new machinery should be ready within two years from now, thought it really ought to be ready before that time. Two years from now could be too late; even majority governments have been known to fall apart. If we are to have the machinery ready for the next election I would say it should be ready by the end of 1970. If this kind of timetable has merit, I suggest too much is being put on the platter of the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I should like to propose that the whole question of election expenses, namely a study of a report of the committee on that subject and any legislation to be based thereon, ought to be referred to a separate committee, even to a special committee.
I do not blame the President of the Privy Council for the order of priorities he has outlined, first, election lists; second, other details; third, election expenses and, finally, the Representation Commissioner Act. However, I am afraid that under this kind of timetable any action on the question of election expenses will get lost in the shuffle. We went through all this in the last parliament. We pressed for something to be done on this question and we were assured that something would be done until, finally, we were informed it was too late. I can see something like that happening again.
We agree that the machine! y for drawing up the lists and so on is very important, but

April 1, 1969
Business of the House we feel that the most important aspect of this whole business as far as genuine democracy is concerned is reform of the means by which elections are paid for-there is another word I might have used as well as "paid for", but I will let it go at that today. So I urge that serious consideration be given to referring these matters to two committees, one to take care of the technical considerations, such as new methods of preparing the lists, and other details, and another to which the whole question of election expenses would be assigned so that we might see action on this issue in the present parliament well in advance of the next election.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Thank
you, Mr. Speaker, I simply wish to comment briefly on the ideas put forward by the previous speakers and related to the proposals of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) to the effect that an agenda should be drawn up and submitted to the committee on privileges and elections, with a view to amending the Canada Elections Act.
The reforms proposed for submission to the committee are overdue. As a matter of fact, the Ralliement Creditiste complained on various occasions about some anomalies they have had to endure at election time. We deplored, for instance, the fact that the electoral machine was under the control of the party in power.
The proposals made today will be looked into by the committee which will then report to the house. Its study will deal with new ways of drawing up lists of electors and setting up election expenditures.
Many changes could be brought about in this last area. Until now, the election epxend-itures of the old political parties simply cannot be compared to those of the new parties, which have to compete with electoral machinery pretty well off from a financial standpoint. Technically speaking, the electoral machinery is under the sole control of the party in power. As to the proposals relating to the reduction of election expenditures, they are suggestions which I believe to be worthwhile but which have been made much too late. However, we must accept them and recommend to the house and to the President of the Privy Council to consider, during the Easter recess, an agenda that could be submitted to the committee on privileges and elections in order that new procedures can be adopted and carried out during the next election campaign.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise to make a suggestion with regard to the motion outstanding in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for LaSalle. If called now, the debate would proceed. I suggest a special order be made to have this transferred to government orders and called as the first item under government orders. In this way we can proceed right away with the oral question period. Perhaps this might be agreeable to the house. I move:
That the motion in the name of Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) be transferred to Government Orders and considered as the first order of business this day under Government Orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Gerald William Baldwin: We are agreeable to accepting that. The minister might be prepared to accept the motion and we will not have to debate it.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the motion agreed to?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will tell the house what reply he is making to the request of Premier Robi-chaud of New Brunswick for an "immediate and urgent" federal-provincial conference on finances?
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I was just given notice of this telegram a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker. I have not considered the reply as yet. There was a federal-provincial meeting of ministers of finance in December. I am sure Premier Robichaud would not want a repetition of that meeting. We want to have a meeting with the provinces in which the provincial governments would be willing to co-operate with us to
April 1, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry ensure that expenses at all levels of government are kept under control. I believe it might be useful if we had meetings at the official level between representatives of the various provincial governments and our own officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I agree that the Premier of New Brunswick would not like to receive the kind of reply he received from the Minister of Finance at the last conference. Does the Prime Minister not agree it is a matter that must be settled and dealt with at the political level? If it is left to the official level probably many months, if not years, would pass before the matter would come back to the provincial level. Is this the answer that the Prime Minister proposes to give to Premier Robichaud?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree it would take several months or years to reach decisions on this. I believe the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make politics with it. He knows that the provincial governments, especially those east of Ottawa, including the government of the province of which he was once the Prime Minister, are in difficult financial situations.
I believe he realizes this problem cannot be met by asking the federal government to give more money to the provinces, unless they want federal taxes to be increased in consequence.


An hon. Member:: What about medicare?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks about medicare. I answered in my previous answer. The whole area we want to discuss with the provinces is how expenditures can be held in check in the various areas in which the federal government and the provincial governments are trying to limit them. We want to discuss the whole ambit of expenditures in which we are jointly included. This can only be done by a meeting for that purpose, and not by demanding more money.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


David Lewis: I should like to ask the Prime Minister to inform this house whether it is his intention to announce his government's policy on Canada's role in NATO before the adjournment for the Easter recess.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will do my best to have that announcement ready before the adjournment for the Easter recess. I have always indicated that we consider that the meetings in Washington on April 9 and 10 are a deadline we have to meet. We are doing our best to meet that deadline. If we can meet the deadline of the house adjournment, we shall make a statement in this place.


David Lewis: Can the Prime Minister not be a little more specific? Can he state if the house will be sitting tomorrow, if for no other reason than to listen to this important announcement on policy? Does the Prime Minister think he will be prepared to make such a statement tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I will be ready, Mr. Speaker, but I will not guarantee it. We are having further meetings of cabinet committees and of cabinet before tomorrow.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport.
Since the expropriations necessary for the construction of the new international airport would keep the mayor and the aldermen of the community of Sainte-Scholastique from fulfilling their obligations, under the Municipal Code, could the minister tell the house if he intends to establish a special committee to take over the administration of the community until the construction begins?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that today is the day when the execution of many of our weekly newspapers across Canada will have been determined, with the decision postponed for a short period, and in view of the representations made by such non-political organizations as the Weekly Newspapers Association, has he decided that there should be an alteration in the new rates already determined upon, to the end that these newspapers so beneficial to the communities and the provinces that they serve shall not be sacrificed?
April 1, 1969	COMMONS


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the weekly newspapers as a class were embarrassed probably the least of all the groups In the publishing Industry, and their complaints have been far less than those of other groups. At the present time the people of Canada are paying approximately 86 per cent to 87 per cent of the costs of delivering weekly newspapers. We think that subsidy is too high, but that is what the taxpayers are presently contributing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
DEBATES	7363
Inquiries of the Ministry EASTER DELIVERY-STEPS TO RELIEVE CONGESTION


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that there will be no mail delivery on Good Friday this week and that post offices are closed on Saturday, does the Postmaster General propose to take any siteps to alleviate the congestion of mail, so that we will have reasonable dispatch of the weekend three days mail delivery?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is of interest that the applause throughout the Liberal benches supports ithe minister's statement. That should be on the record. I ask the minister whether he is not going to give reconsideration to the strong representations that have been made by the Weekly Newspapers Association, to preserve this necessary element in the village and town life of our country?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated in my answer that the present subsidy has reached a level of 86 per cent. I do not intend to increase that subsidy to 93 per cent or 94 per cent.


John George Diefenbaker: They don't ask that.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Postmaster General. Can he assure the house that the weekly newspapers will not be financially embarrassed right out of business?



RETENTION OF RURAL POST OFFICES PENDING SUBSTITUTION

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Can he assure the house that there will be no close down of rural post offices until such time as adequate and satisfactory substitute service is available?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I think I can tell you that if we examine 100 post offices approximately 40 of them will remain open, generally speaking for the reason that the hon. member has suggested, that we cannot substitute a better service. In other words the mere fact that we examine 100 or 200 post offices does not mean that 100 or 200 will be closed.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, we have been working this out with the unions.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question.
On January 17, 1967, as stated on page 11878 of the official debates of the house, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson declared that the 7 per cent bonus for bilingual employees would be retroactive to October 1, 1966.
Could the Prime Minister tell the house when the order in council of October 1966 will be brought into force and if those civil servants can expect a salary adjustment before the bill concerning the official languages is passed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That question comes under the Secretary of State, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that it be directed to him.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the Government of Canada presently conducting merger discussions regarding Canadian air services overseas with Canadian Pacific Airlines on behalf of Air Canada, or is Air Canada discussing this possibility directly with Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no to both questions.
April 1, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry
AIRPORTS	GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION



STE. SCHOLASTIQUE-JET OVERHAUL FACILITIES

Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister say whether plans for the new airport at St. Scholastique include the construction of jet overhaul base facilities at that new airport for both Air Canada and any other national Canadian carriers?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, to the best of my knowledge there is no plan to build base maintenance facilities at St. Scholastique. There will of course be line maintenance facilities, but according to the last briefing I had there was no plan to build base maintenance facilities.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Can the minister say whether it is the intention to ferry all aircraft requiring more extensive overhaul from St. Scholastique to Dorval?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That would be the present intention, Mr. Speaker. However, these plans are always subject to change as the hon. member knows, and therefore it is very difficult to speculate or to make commitments, or at least to give information which is not subject to change some time in the future. But I think that if the question were directed to the management of the companies at this stage it would be their plan to ferry the planes to Dorval for base maintenance.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary to the minister. In view of the fact that $21 million is being allocated for base extension at Dorval, does not the minister regard the Air Canada position as one of gross deception-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this is argumentation and not a question.



MONTREAL-REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL INQUIRY INTO ALLEGED LEAK

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. In view of the judgment made yesterday, and I am not referring to the judgment other than just as a preamble, would the Prime Minister now consider it would be proper to set up a judicial inquiry in reference to the cabinet leak in reference to the new Montreal airport?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRETAPING OF DECISIONS PRIOR TO PRESENTATION IN HOUSE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it now accepted as government policy that they are prepared to pretape government decisions and cabinet decisions prior to making those decisions, or at least prior to the announcement of those decisions in the House of Commons'?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, it may be that we will have to look at the whole area of information services to the public, and it may be that such facilities in the future would have to be brought under government control.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct one more supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In. view of his statement made outside the house, does he now consider that the Official Secrets Act does apply to people unsworn in other parts, that are not part of government, such as television and radio stations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I am informed it applies to contractors but I would not presume to give the hon. member a legal opinion.



BROADCASTING


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As a further supplementary question, did the minister express a legal opinion outside the House of Commons on TV stations in Canada last evening?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I gave my own opinion, Mr. Speaker, based on advice I had received; but I was interested yesterday, and I thought the hon. member and the hon. member for York South sort of pointed up beautifully the importance of the electronic media when they left the chamber before Orders of the Day were concluded-


Mr. Speaker:: Order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -to tape their comments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -in order to catch the early news last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please
April 1. 1969


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Transport see no distinction between a member of the opposition going out to make a comment on the behavior of a minister in the house, and a minister of the Crown making a recording several days before an official announcement which might have a very prejudicial effect upon the people of this country?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I believe there is, indeed, a difference but I think absenting oneself from the house without leave is mentioned in the rules. I was surprised my hon. friend did not have the patience to wait-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder whether 1 might rise on a question of privilege. I realize this government is becoming more dictatorial every day, but I did not know I had to ask special leave from the Minister of Transport, who has leaked a secret to the nation. If he recognized his responsibility he would realize that he is now in breach of the oath he took as Privy Councillor of this nation.


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


David Lewis: Eldon, he does not deserve this attention.


An hon. Member:: Who-the hon. member for Greenwood?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to change the subject by directing a question to the Minister of National Defence. Would he be prepared to bring before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence soon after the Easter recess the evidence available to the government on the proposed installation of the anti-ballistic missile system in the United States and any possible Canadian involvement in the system?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there would be any objection on our part to a comprehensive briefing that could be held in camera. I have no objection to that. The
Inquiries of the Ministry member seems to think we have written memoranda or an exchange of printed material, which we do not have. We have at the technical level exchanged views and technical data that we can translate into a briefing for the committee. I think that would be agreeable to me.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I should like to ask the minister whether there is material of an unclassified nature which was made available either in writing or orally to the government and which could properly be put before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: I have no objection to trying to sort this out. Certainly part of the material could be made public but if there is to be an extensive briefing there are a number of things which would be considered to be classified. Whichever approach is preferable can be followed.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister is one to which I have been seeking an answer now for some time, including yesterday. Will the Prime Minister indicate whether the government endorses the compulsory retirement at age 60 of employees of Devco, a crown corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think this question would have to be asked of the minister responsible for Devco.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister that this question goes back to early last fall and has been asked several times within the last two weeks. It was asked again yesterday. According to the Prime Minister's roster the minister was supposed to have been here to answer the question yesterday. Devco has taken action to retire crown corporation employees compulsorily at age 60. Surely the Prime Minister as leader of the government should know whether it is government policy to retire employees compulsorily at age 60. Would he give consideration to this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will give consideration to that question, Mr. Speaker.
7366	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: While the Prime Minister is giving consideration to my question will he give consideration to the uncertainty under which the miners of Cape Breton are living because of the unjust society he is running?



INCOME TAX


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct this question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the minister has put off until after the Easter recess the bringing in of his bill to amend the Income Tax Act, will he now consider including in that bill, when he does bring it in, provision to make it unnecessary for people who have only their old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement to pay income tax thereon?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of change of exemptions which was not provided for in the resolution I presented to the house. As my friend knows, the whole matter of personal exemptions and tax reform ini this country is under consideration. I hope to bring in a white paper in this regard in June.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is ithe minister not aware that we have changed the rule since his earlier resolution was passed and that the bill he will now bring in will be a bill de novo, and that he could alter it to provide for the change I have suggested.


Edgar John Benson: I am quite aware I could change the bill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the minister's use of the word "hope" in respect of what we took to be a commitment that the white paper would be brought in in June, is this no longer assured but purely an expression of hope on the part of the minister?


Edgar John Benson: 1 have learned that in government everything is a hope. My intention is to produce a white paper in June if it is at all possible to do so.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, could the Minister of Finance inform the house, in view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare is

DEBATES	April 1. 1969
not with us today, that the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with regard to the raising of the exemption for those in receipt of pension assistance will come under the details of the review currently being carried on by his department in respect of the matter of welfare and so on?


Edgar John Benson: I am sure all provisions surrounding our welfare programs are being considered and studied by the department.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is he now ready to answer the question I put to the Prime Minister last Wednesday, March 26 as to whether Canada is committed or has agreed to allow the American government to use Canadian bases located in the Canadian Far North, in order to establish an emergency airborne system, and has the government pledged itself to supply those bases or to allow the United States to use such bases on our territory?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to look into that.



MEDICAL SERVICE TO DEPENDANTS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Has medical service to dependants on a Canadian forces base been discontinued as of yesterday and, if so, is this related to the introduction of medicare in the province of Manitoba?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to check it, but this would be news to me. I know that we adapt our rates to provincial rates. I think that is the only change that has been contemplated. I will have to check, but I would be very surprised.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I have been provided
April 1, 1969

with the answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris and perhaps I might be allowed to give that answer now. In trying to provide extra service to the dependants of our servicemen we undertook, on a three-month trial basis, to provide limited medical care to dependants. This trial was conducted at Shilo, Manitoba, and ended yesterday. We found the costs too high to make any firm undertaking to provide this service at other than isolated bases. This trial was in no way connected with medicare or the entry of Manitoba into the medicare plan.



TRANSPORT


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Following the minister's assurance to the house on Monday that the freight rate freeze in Atlantic Canada will remain in effect pending consideration of Bill C-182, would the minister assure the house at this time that the bill which freezes the rates on maritime transportation will be brought before the house immediately upon the resumption of parliament after the Easter recess?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is the government's policy to proceed with the bill soon following our return from the Easter recess.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In light of reports from the Lakehead that a strike of sheet metal workers at that point has created an emergency in respect of the installation of new grain drying equipment and as a consequence has seriously aggravated the problem of drying wet and damp grain, can the minister indicate when this strike may be settled and whether he is taking action to expedite the settlement?


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: I may be wrong, Mr. Speaker, but I think the dispute in question is one that comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial minister of labour.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



COPPER-MEETING OF CANADIAN REQUIREMENTS

Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In respect of the statement the minister made today concerning copper, may I ask him whether he has received assurances from the copper producers in this country that Canadian requirements will be met?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The purpose of the announcement I made was to make sure of that. There is still a discrepancy between what is offered by the producers and what is needed by the Canadian users. The present situation is very complicated: a number of producers who were shipping to Noranda for refining and were selling at the North America price also would like to benefit from the L.M.E. price. We are trying to get the industry, in its best interests, to make the adjustment itself. I hope we will manage.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say whether he has received any representations from American users of copper in regard to this question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breion-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question on the same subject for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I agree with him that it is a rather complicated matter, but is the minister's statement a threat to the producers that if they do not play ball and go along with the system of controls they will not be allowed to sell outside Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the exercise is to make sure that manufacturers in Canada will get their copper in quantities and at a price that is reasonable, so that they will remain competitive among themselves and also competitive in foreign markets.


Max Saltsman: A further supplementary question. Has the minister made any representations to scrap dealers in copper with a view to granting export licences?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, they are covered in part by the statement that I have made today.
April 1, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



HOGS-INCENTIVE TO PRODUCE HIGHER QUALITY

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the government indicated that the change in hog grading 90 days ago was based on the incentive to improve the breed of hogs rather than the estimated saving of $2 million, would the minister indicate whether his announcement last week, which will result in a further reduction in the payments made to the producers, was made after consultation with producers' organizations or was it a straight economy move on the part of the government?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the principle of concentrating incentive to produce higher quality hogs has been discussed with the producers' organizations many times, and they have agreed with the principle.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the 1968 Auditor General's report contains a number of matters which are a continuation of the very interesting subjects that are now engaging the attention of the public accounts committee, would the minister confer with his colleague the President of the Privy Council to see whether it would be possible to make an order today or tomorrow to refer to the Public Accounts Committee the 1968 Auditor General's report? I mention this in view of the Easter recess which may provide an opportunity for mer-bers, particularly those with a penchant for horror tales, to read the report.


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to discuss this matter with the President of the Privy Council.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Labour. Last night I asked the minister a series of questions relating to the situation in the port of Montreal. Since the minister is in the house today, is he in a position to give the house a statement as to what he foresees in the next few days in regard to keeping this port open?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, negotiations between the Shipping Federation and the
I.LA., in relation to the ports of Montreal, Trois Rivieres and Quebec broke off last night at about eleven o'clock. Owing to the fact that the judge involved, Alan Gold, had been chairing meetings almost continuously for the last 96 hours, both sides agreed that the judge be given an extension of 48 hours in which to prepare a report to be submitted to the Minister of Labour. As the hon. gentleman is aware, upon the receipt of that report both sides will be entitled within seven days either to go on strike or to lock out. In the meantime I have been informed that the port activities are continuing in a very orderly fashion.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. Would the minister inform the house whether on receipt of the report from the conciliator he is legally empowered to refer it back to the conciliator for further consideration or other action?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I have already done that on several occasions last year. If I were to predict what will happen I would say, in tribute to Judge Alan Gold who has acted as chairman of the arbitration board and at the same time, as chairman of the conciliation board, for 15 months, that knowing the deep interest he has in the port of Montreal I am confident that when I receive the report I will find it to be a complete one, and therefore there would be no reason to return it.



TRANSPORT


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Would he explain why the major consultant firm that is preparing an estimate on the Prince Edward Island causeway has not been told to discontinue its work?
April 1. 1969	COMMONS



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY-RELEASE OF STANFORD RESEARCH REPORT

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise whether the government has acceded to the request of the Premier of Prince Edward Island with reference to the release of the Stanford Research Institute report and the report of Colonel Edward Churchill on the Northumberland causeway, both of which documents the Prince Edward Island legislature wishes to have tabled and examined?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the Minister of Public Works to provide me with the answer to those questions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The question raised by the hon. member for Hillsborough relates, of course, in part at least to the notice of motion for production of papers which was accepted some weeks if not months ago. At that time an indication was given by the Minister of Transport, and I believe by the government house leader, that the only hold-up was in waiting for the consent of the Prince Edward Island government, which now seems to have been available for some little time. I wonder whether either the Minister of Transport or the Prime Minister would give the house the assurance that before we adjourn for the Easter break tomorrow these documents will be tabled and made available to the house?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated previously I do not think I referred specifically to the Prince Edward Island government; I referred to the provincial governments. My understanding is that as yet consent has not been received. Therefore, in accordance with the practice of the house I cannot give the undertaking requested without the necessary consent.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible to regard a request from the Prince Edward Island government as a de facto indication of consent? They are asking for it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: But I said "provincial governments"-plural.
DEBATES	7369
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



AUTOMOBILES-LOWER U.S. SALE PRICE UNDER AGREEMENT

Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the idea of the U.S.-Canada car pact was parity of price between cars made in Canada and cars made in the United States, could the minister explain to the house why the new Ford model known as the Maverick will be selling for approximately $380 less in the United States than it will sell for in Canada, even though the car is made in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that the question is in order. The hon. member's question is rather in the form of an argument, and I do not think the time of the house should be devoted to arguments instead of questions at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: have a related question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the minister been given an explanation by the Ford Motor Company of the difference in price and been advised why a Canadian made automobile sells in the United States for $380 less than its advertised price in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is the
same question, Mr. Speaker, but it is not argumentative.


Mr. Speaker:: I realize it is not an argument. Since I feel unhappy that the hon. member for Wellington did not receive an answer, perhaps the minister would reply to both questions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, before asking for an explanation from the Ford Motor Company I asked for an explanation from my officials. First of all, if you deduct from the $300 the difference in currency exchange and also the difference in sales tax, this reduces the amount to a little over $100. The average differential in production cost between the two countries has been brought down from 9 per cent in 1964 to 3.8 per cent in 1969. A difference of about $100 is equivalent to about 5 per cent. There is still the difference between 5 per cent and 3.8 per cent. I am meeting Mr. Scott, president of Ford Motors, on April 7, and either before or at that time I will bring this to his attention and ask for an explanation.
April 1, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question to the Minister. The minister has stated there is a difference of approximately $100, taking into consideration the factors he mentioned. I should like to ask him why there is not complete parity.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, one of the purposes of the pact is to achieve that.



AGRICULTURE


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. Now that the Congress on Agriculture is over, can the minister tell us when we may expect the final report of the task force?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I think the task force itself indicated at the congress that it hoped to have the report ready by the end of this year. If I may, I would like to advise hon. members that I still have a few of the papers and documents prepared for the congress, and if any hon. member would like them and would send my office a request we would be glad to send him a copy. I think, however, I can wait only a few more days because there are agricultural schools and universities that would like to have the copies that we have left.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate whether there will be tabled in the house or presented to the agricultural committee some form of report from the congress, so we may know the views of the 400 people who conferred on the report of the task force?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, a summary of the discussion at the congress will be prepared and distributed to interested parties and observers, which includes all the members of the Standing Committee on Agriculture of this house. If any other member would like to have it and if he would advise my office we will see that he gets it.



FARM MACHINERY


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, since the commission on farm machinery

prices presented a study paper to the Congress on Agriculture, can the minister say whether his department is conducting any discussions with a view to taking follow-up action based on the commission's findings which show price differentials of many hundreds of dollars?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What is more, Dr. Barber of that commission has indicated to me that he will have a further paper for me within a very few days taking into account the different pricing practices, if I may call them that, in many places in addition to the difference between those practices in England and Canada. In fairness to the commission and to the farming industry, before we proceed I think we should wait the extra time it may take for the submission of the report encompassing all these pricing practices.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise the house whether the Minister of Justice and other government officials have completed consultations with those premiers and attorneys general of the provinces that have found the official languages bill unacceptable? If so, can the Prime Minister advise when the house may expect to resume debate on the official languages bill?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice has, I believe, met with the attorney general of each province. He has advised me of the results of those meetings. It appears that certain amendments are desired by some of the provinces if they do not take this bill to the Supreme Court. We are considering these amendments now with the minister and the Secretary of State. Once cabinet has decided whether it will accept these amendments, they will either be brought into the house or we will proceed with the bill as it stands.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister be so bold as to indicate which sections of the present bill the premiers and attorneys general have found unacceptable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I would not be that bold, Mr. Speaker.
April 1, 1969



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Rod Thomson (Bailleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. When will the 1968 officer training pay be paid to cadet groups?


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question in this house. It may have been considered argumentative, but I felt the Minister of National Defence wanted to answer it.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I did want to answer that I did not know.



U.S. REACTION TO CANADIAN POLICY

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether he has passed on to the President of the United States and to members of his cabinet the information given to him by the Canadian association of independent oil producers, to the effect that the Northern part of the United States could absorb between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels of Canadian fuel oil per day, and in the affirmative, what was their reaction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this question broadly last week with the President of the United States, and we have agreed to organize meetings of officials, which are to begin effectively tomorrow in Washington. Canadian officials will discuss this problem with United States officials.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a complementary question.
Has the Canadian government adopted the same policy as the United States, particularly in appointing a group called a task force, made up of a committee of ministers whose task would be to follow this question, or is the Canadian government going to appoint only civil servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the responsible minister is looking into the matter very
Transport and Communications closely, and the work that he is having done is being done within the departments.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



THE MINISTRY


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that this is the first day of April, does that mean that Bill C-173 has come into effect, and may I ask the Prime Minister whether we should now call certain ministers by their new names or does there have to be some other formality?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the swearing in of ministers in respect of their new titles and functions took place at noon today. They would be honoured to be called by their new names now, especially the Minister of Communications.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: We have another name for him.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 19,1969, be concurred in.
Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood that when the motion was called yesterday Your Honour recognized the hon. member for LaSalle. In view of the fact that the hon. member is the chairman and spokesman of the committee and was, I understand, prepared to take the floor-I also judge this to be so from what I can see from here-to justify and, hopefully, support the recommendation, I ask whether the hon. member is not going to speak in accordance with the fact that he was recognized by Your Honour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's point of order is not well taken. If the
7372	COMMONS
Transport and Communications hon. member rose and sought the floor I would recognize him. But my understanding is that he did not rise; he bowed to the Chair for the purpose of indicating that he was moving the motion. If the hon. member rises,
I recognize that as chairman of the committee he would be given preference. But I would think this might perhaps be wishful thinking on the part of the hon. member for Peace River.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: In making the point of order I am prepared to say that if there is any dispute I would be perfectly prepared to move that the hon. member for LaSalle be now heard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As always, one can only be amused by the antics of the hon. member for Peace River.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: You should see yourself.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say that these contributions from the other side are very interesting. They are probably better than we will get for the rest of the debate.
As I have already indicated previously in my remarks on this question, the government has no difficulty in accepting the initial part of the report of the standing committee. In particular we take no exception to the first of the recommendations made, except perhaps to say that we feel that for the benefit of maritime shippers the freeze should not be limited to the period mentioned by the committee but should be extended for the period of a full year. But I make no complaint on this point, and a bill to that effect has now been introduced in the house.
I should like, however, to address my remarks to the second of the two recommendations of the committee, to wit:
-the order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 5 1969, be left In abeyance, until your committee tables its complete report in respect to this question.
I should now like to suggest to the house- and this was referred to by Mr. Speaker in his opinion delivered yesterday-that although this report has been found to be in order the house should not concur in it.


An hon. Member:: Does Mr. Pickersgill think this?

DEBATES	April 1. 1969


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I am flattered the horn, member thinks I have the clarity and the agility of thought of the president of the Canadian Transport Commission.
My contentions axe the ones that I mentioned yesterday. The principal one is that the house should not endeavour to do by a resolution what can only be done by a statute. In other words, we should not try by a motion of this kind to set aside an act of parliament. As hon. members know, land as was already pointed out, in previous years parliament has indicated that the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Transport Commission as autonomous organizations should assume the responsibility for decisions with respect to rail line abandonment. I think it is a salutary principle for parliament, having given that authority to those two bodies with respect to the management of this problem, to permit these bodies to carry out their responsibilities until parliament chooses by an appropriate amending statute to change the authority in that regard.
Hon. members opposite appear to be of the opinion that the house should ignore legislation giving the Canadian Transport Commission and the C.N.R. the authority to make decisions on questions of abandonment of rail service. I do not share their view, and I submit to the house that if we are not proposing to change the statute law in this regard-and the position of the government is that we should not change it-we should not give to the two bodies directions of the kind suggested in the proposed report.
For these reasons I move:
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with instruction that they have power to amend the same by deleting the fourth paragraph thereof, which reads as follows: "Your committee recommends that the order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 5, 1969, be left in abeyance, until your committee tables its complete report in respect to this question."


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to the amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: May
I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is that the amendment is defective in that it refers to certain words as being in the fourth paragraph of the report. As I read them they are in the fifth paragraph of the report. The other day Your Honour ruled
April 1, 1969

that a motion that did not make sense could not be put by the Chair.


Mr. McGrath:: April Fool.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you give up now when you are ahead?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the point of order?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should just like to make an observation. It seems to me that it is the fourth paragraph of the report. The first paragraph seems to be what constitutes a preamble.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But
it is a paragraph.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not know how seriously the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to press this point, but I would suggest that the reference really is to the fourth paragraph of the report, unless there is serious objection to that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, yesterday there was a ruling based on a technicality. Surely to goodness if we are going to be technical on one day we should be technical on the next. It is not a case of fitting rulings to the circumstances, and I am not suggesting that there is any such consideration in Your Honour's mind. But surely if there is a reference to stated words in a particular paragraph and unless the paragraphs are numbered, the paragraph referred to, whether it is a preamble, a recital or what have you, is still paragraph 1, and so on down the line. If such is the case, and I will take the word of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that these words are in the fifth paragraph, then no such words appear in the fourth paragraph. If the amendment is defective, it is defective.


Gerald William Baldwin: May I suggest that a fairly serious objection has been made, so possibly Your Honour might like to give the matter some consideration and in the meantime we could proceed with the debate. If Your Honour should hold that the amendment is defective, the President of the Privy Council might be prepared to come back and ask for unanimous consent to make another motion. Whether or not unanimous consent will be granted is another thing, but ini the meantime the debate might proceed so that we do not lose any time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Rather than belabour the point perhaps I should say again that I
Transport and Communications did make the observation that the first paragraph constituted a preamble and the following four paragraphs were substantive paragraphs. That point is being questioned. In the interest of expediency, perhaps it might be best to accept the point of order and to say the amendment is defective. Possibly the President of the Privy Council could arrange for someone to move an amendment subsequently.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, before making some other observations on this matter I should like to deal very briefly with two of the more serious arguments just presented by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). First of all, I should like to make clear that according to my understanding of the report of the committee it did not instruct the house as to what it should do; it merely recommended to the house a certain course of action.
This matter was dealt with extensively yesterday when another point of order was being discussed by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I do not intend to belabour the point now, but I think it is quite clear from the simple definition of the word "recommend" in Webster's Dictionary that there was nothing peremptory in the committee's report so far as the government is concerned. It was merely a recommendation to the government by the committee that a certain course of action be followed. It most certainly did not specify in any way the method by which that course of action should be carried out. That was left entirely to the government because it is the government's prerogative. It merely recommended that certain things be done.
The second objection raised by the President of the Privy Council concerns the fact that we are asking the government to undo something that is within the prerogative of the Canadian Transport Commission. Again, this is not the case. Under the act which brought the Canadian Transport Commission into existence, provision is made for appeals from decisions of the commission. In particular, provision is made for an appeal to the Governor in Council, in other words, to the cabinet.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
In this case a committee of this house was, in a sense, providing a form of appeal. That committee was empowered by the house to investigate problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, a very broad field. Having
April 1. 1969

Transport and Communications heard evidence it was, in effect, providing for an appeal from the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission with reference to passenger service in the province of Newfoundland carried out by the Canadian National Railways but abrogated as of a certain date, namely, April 5, following an order of the C.T.C. This is what the report of the committee purported to do. As any group of persons might do it was seeking an appeal from this decision. On these two grounds I submit that both the arguments put forward by the President of the Privy Council are completely invalid.
A word, now, on the subject of the work of committees generally and of the Transport Committee in particular. When the new rules were introduced into this house I believe the public in general and, indeed, most hon. members, had high hopes for the committee system under the new arrangements. Some of us had misgivings as to the way in which these committees might operate, first, because all of them except one had a government member as chairman'-the notable exception being the Public Accounts Committee-and, second, because all the committees had a majority of government members sitting on them. For these reasons a number of us felt misgivings about the way in which the committees would perform and whether they would work as effectively as was hoped. It was certainly made clear as far as the study of spending estimates was concerned that the work of the opposition parties in the house would be done by these new committees. The fears to which I have referred, namely, that the committees would not be able to carry out their work properly have now been realized, though, as is often the case in parliament and elsewhere, not in the way which had been expected.
I should like to make a few remarks on the subject of the Transport Committee in particular, in connection with which I have had certain responsibilities. I should also like to make some reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It is true that the Transport Committee has been faced with certain problems, but I should like to make it clear that as far as I and my hon. friends are concerned we do not put the blame for these difficulties on either of the chairmen who have presided over that committee up to now or, indeed, on any of the government members of the committee. So far as we are concerned the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) and the

hon. member for Manicougan (Mr. Blouin) conducted themselves in the most exemplary manner. I think they did very good work indeed. As for the government members of the committee and, indeed, all members of the committee, they worked very hard and very seriously and did their work objectively as far as I was able to observe. With the exception of one or two occasions which were not the fault of anyone within the committee itself, committee members did their work in a sincere, hardworking manner and with a minimum of partisan politics. I believe I can say this without fear of contradiction.
I believe the Transport Committee would never have experienced some of the problems it encountered on one or two occasions had it not been for outside interference by, it would appear, on one occasion-and certainly it is the case on this occasion-the leader of the house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oxford has just uttered a falsehood. He said that on a previous occasion there had been interference on my part. The Committee on Privileges and Elections clearly established that I had nothing to do with the proceedings of the Transport Committee, and this was acknowledged by all the members of that committee, including members of his own party. I hope he will withdraw the insinuation that I attempted to control the committee at that time.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. A question of privilege has been raised by the President of the Privy Council and I take it the hon. member for Oxford was about to respond.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I was just about to comment, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, no report from the Committee on Privileges and Elections has yet been approved by the house. The subject was dealt with by that committee to some extent, of course, but as far as I know-and I was a member of the committee-the report has not been concurred in unanimously at all.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was concurred in by the committee.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: There may have been a committee report but it certainly was not unanimous. I am speaking from memory at the moment. In any event, it seems that the
April 1, 1969	COMMONS
President of the Privy Council is unduly sensitive in this regard.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I just have a regard for the truth.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Let the hon. gentleman keep still for a moment. I realize he is having difficulty in containing himself but I would remind him that when he is dealing with members of the opposition he is not dealing with members of his own caucus whom he can shut up at will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If the President of the Privy Council would pay a little less attention to some of his friends, with whom he seems to be carrying on a conversation, and more attention to what is being said I think he would find I referred to the first instance of difficulty in the Transport Committee as arising from a suspicion of interference. Certainly that suspicion existed. Among other things, it led to the matter being referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. At one time-and this is on record in Hansard-the President of the Privy Council made reference to the committee in this house, saying there was information that certain things had taken place. This, not unreasonably, caused concern among opposition members and the incident was the subject of an inquiry before the Committee on Privileges and Elections. When the committee's report is presented and probably debated, more of these circumstances will perhaps be brought to light and placed in better perspective. This point may be open to question if the President of the Privy Council feels so sensitive about it. That is his view, of course.
But in the second instance there is no doubt there has been interference or attempted interference with this committee by the hon. gentleman. First, as Your Honour is well aware, the President of the Privy Council attempted to do so by means of a point of order which proved to be not a very substantial one. Now he has attempted to do indirectly, by moving an amendment to the motion to adopt the committee's report, what he could not do directly. It seems a great pity to me that he should seek to do so in view of the work which has been done by the Transport Committee in particular as well as by other committees.
DEBATES	7375
Transport and Communications [DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
The Transport Committee made a rather unprecedented trip in order to gain information for the government and the house. It took a trip recently on instructions from the house to look into transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces. I understand that the Committee on agriculture, the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other committees are taking similar trips. I think this is very good, Mr. Speaker. These trips involve a great deal of time on the part of members of these committees who are away from their duties and the house. Exclusive concentration of effort is required in this regard. They involve considerable expense to the house.
I think this work and expense are justified, Mr. Speaker. These committees are being given additional work and responsibility. Committees I have been associated with have done their work well, objectively and with a minimum of partisanship. It is a pity that when reports are brought in they are obviously interfered with by the government. In this particular case there was interference by the blunt instrument of the government, the President of the Privy Council. There were suspicions in the Transport Committee that the President of the Privy Council was acting on behalf of others, perhaps members of the Canadian Transport Commission who are former members of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It is a shame, I agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I draw the hon. member's attention to the fact that the rules of relevancy restrict the debate at this point to the content of the report. While I appreciate that the hon. member has had a much longer experience in the house than I have, I think it is in the best interests of the procedures of the house that we follow the rules of relevancy and restrict our remarks as much as possible to the content of the report.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I quite agree with Your Honour. I think the remarks I made concerning the subject of committees and committee reports have been highly relevant. I will not continue with further remarks along this line if you feel they are out of order. I will continue in a different vein.
It seems a pity that recommendations carefully drawn up by members of the Transport Committee are disregarded. It is a waste of time for committees to work hard and travel
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications round the country if their recommendations are to be tossed aside at the whim of the government. An example is the report of this committee. The government was well aware that this committee was in the Atlantic provinces and would be presenting a report on its return. Before the committee had an opportunity to submit its report, the government made its decision regarding the Prince Edward Island causeway. They did not consider any recommendations the committee would have in that regard.


An hon. Member:: They did not have to.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: An hon. member said they did not have to. Of course not. The government is omnipotent and all-powerful. When the government sends a committee on a trip it does not have the courtesy to wait for the committee to return before making decisions.


An hon. Member:: How do you know? You were not there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member no doubt is trying to make political hay. I happen to be a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and was in Europe at the time.
The substance of the report of the Transport Committee concerns the passenger service of the Newfoundland railway. I do not intend to deal with the substance. Others of my colleagues will do so in more detail and at greater length.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a cheerful prospect.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It may be cheerful for some and not so cheerful for others. The government is never obliged to accept the recommendations of any committee. When we are starting out with a new set of rules, powers and authority for committees I feel the government should1 bend over backwards in trying to accept and follow these reports. If the government had certain views on a matter being studied by the committee it could have made formal representations to members of the committee, which would have avoided all this trouble.
It is quite clear that the lines of communication between the cabinet and the Canadian Transport Commission have somehow got fouled up. If the government had made its views known to members of the committee, some compromise arrangement could have been worked out. I am in no way attaching any blame to the chairman. It is quite obvious he is not to blame. Had the government

attempted to transmit its views, this waste of time in the house could have been avoided.
As I mentioned before, very sincere and hard work has been done by the chairman and members of the Transport Committee. The same applies to other committees of which I have knowledge. This new work is being carried out by the committees at a very great cost to the taxpayers. The government should keep itself better informed of what is going on in the committees.
It is quite clear the cat is now out of the bag. It is not a very nice cat. It is a big, scruffy alley cat. The alley cat I refer to is the government's intention to toss aside committee reports without inquiring what the committee is doing. If this is going to continue, members of this house will be perfectly justified in feeling that their work on committees is a waste of time.
The government should not toss aside committee reports without taking the trouble to find out what is going on. Many weeks of hard work have been put into these reports and the taxpayers' money is being spent so that the members of these committees can travel. Most of us could be better employed looking after our correspondence and doing other work in the house. If this kind of thing continues, I see very little hope for the committee system. Government members can take what they wish out of this, but to say that if it continues a great many members may feel it will be a waste of time to go to committee meetings. I hope the government will bear these observations in mind, pull up its socks, and make the committee system work a little better.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I must first refer to the opening remarks of the government house leader when he said that he had not interfered previously in the work of any committee. As has been mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), he did interfere on a previous occasion in the house when a question was put to him, as recorded at page 3587 of Hansard for December 6, 1968, when he said:
I have not studied this; I am advised that the resolution was passed but that it was out of order.
I have been around long enough in public life at the municipal, provincial and federal levels to know what interference means, and that was interference. In the present case we
April 1. 1969	COMMONS
have interference of the worst kind, and the minister cannot evade that charge.
I am not too sure whether the amendment he has introduced has been accepted, but I will not be surprised if an additional amendment is proposed by a member of the committee. However, the fact remains that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) said that the Transport Committee should not have set aside an act of parliament. No one on that committee had any intention of setting aside an act of parliament. The basic fact is that we made a recommendation to the house, and as a recommendation it should not cause any problem for the government house leader.
Committee members had no intention of saying that the Canadian Transport Commission should not be entitled to carry out its obligations. We know what the particular order of that commission said, and we know that it has not really been implemented. If any standing committee is to have a useful function in parliament then surely a recommendation submitted by it should be accepted.
As an example I refer to a recommendation which came to this house from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on December 3 last. The committee said in its report of that date:
Your committee recommends that its order of reference be enlarged allowing it to consider the following-
That was in the second report of the standing committee, and the next day the chairman of the committee moved that that report be concurred in. That was just a recommendation to the house, and there is absolutely no difference between that type of recommendation and the last report of the committee with which we are now concerned.
The recommendation of the committee at that time was that it be allowed to consider:
The problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces.
If the house leader was concerned about that recommendation he should have raised the matter at the time the second report of the committee was submitted and should not try to play around now with words in order to gain a particular point he wishes to make.
It is important that we take a close look at the directions given to the committee by the house before the committee went on its trip
DEBATES	7377
Transport and Communications to the Atlantic provinces, as recorded in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, January 17:
On motion of Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale), seconded by Mr. Hellyer, it was ordered,-That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be empowered to consider and report on the problems of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, and that, for the purposes of its inquiry, the Committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada and the Clerk and the necessary supporting staff be authorized to accompany the committee.
If it was the intention of the cabinet to exclude rail transportation from the committee's terms of reference then that should have been specified in that motion. I suggest it would be advisable for hon. members opposite to take a look at exactly what the word transportation means. In the Dictionary of Sociology and Related Sciences the definition of transportation is:
The carriage or removal of persons or things by a conveyance on land, water, or in the air e.g., by beast, human or animal drawn sledge or vehicle, boat, railroad, automotive vehicle, or aircraft. Also, the material instruments involved.
I suggest that is: what we went to the Atlantic provinces to study. The second definition of transportation that it gives is:
A method of punishment originally devised by England for the most hardened criminals. It had a precedent in that country in the practice of outlawry whereby certain persons could escape hanging by abjuring the realm.
I suggest that the government house leader should take to heart that second definition of transportation and leave this house in the light of his actions over the last two days.
When the committee visited the Atlantic provinces the whole concept of transportation had to be taken into consideration. Members of the committee knew at that time that a bill was before the House of Commons dealing with growth areas, and transportation policy must be considered in the context of growth areas. If the government is really concerned about the problems of slow growth areas it must realize the real meaning of the word transportation. It must realize that good transportation can be very helpful to growth areas.
We know that the recommendation made by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was unanimously adopted by that committee. I suggest it is a myth to pretend that the members of the committee who were absent would have voted otherwise. We know that the house leader did not communicate with anyone not to allow this particular
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications motion to be adopted, at least so far -as the records are concerned.
In the records of the Transport Committee there is reference to a press release from the Canadian National indicating that the company was going to leave the passenger train in service. In addition, Canadian National filed with the committee a letter under date of March 14, 1969, and I would like to read a portion of that report dealing with Newfoundland passenger train service:
Throughout the winter we have been keeping a close check on the situation and as the April 15th date approaches, which is the date on which the Commission must make its final disposition of the matter, we are in the process of reassessing the situation. This, basically, was the intended import of the recent statements by Newfoundland Railway officers in response to inquiries. From the recent statistics that I have it will be apparent that there has been a very heavy response to the bus operation by the people of Newfoundland, and in light of this our operating people are examining the position regarding the number of buses that will be required during the coming months. In view of this, we have in contemplation the possibility of having the train services extended for a short period beyond April 15th.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I conclude with these words:
-it is not our intention that the train services be continued indefinitely.
If Canadian National Railways as a crown corporation can take unto itself the right to decide when that particular passenger train will be discontinued, then I say in all sincerity that if this committee, as a creature of the House of Commons, does not have the same right then every committee of the house might just as well be disbanded.
Let us take a look at Board Order No. R-2673. I shall read only a portion of the fifth part:
-it may upon notice to the applicants and to all parties who appeared before it in December, 1967, reconvene the hearing to consider whether in the exercise of its general powers under the Railway Act, it should impose further conditions to be met prior to the discontinuance of the passenger train service or direct the adoption of such measures as may be necessary to ensure the adequacy of the bus service.
Surely anyone who is willing to consider the pros and cons of the situation will realize that we have as much right to make recommendations to the House of Commons as anyone else in respect of adopting the recommendation of the Canadian Transport Commission. We are not going beyond our line of authority. We have as much right as Canadian National Railways to make the decision
[Mr. Skoberg.l
that has been made. I agree with the decision. I believe it is an excellent decision other than the fact that I do not agree with the shortterm continuation. I believe this too will have to be taken into consideration by the Canadian Transport Commission at a later date. It would appear that somewhere along the line there must have been some direction given to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I hope the cabinet will not decide, merely on the whim of the house leader, that they will not accept the recommendations we make.
Perhaps- the only purpose of the standing committees at this time in the House of Commons is to give the backbenchers of the Liberal party something to do. This was stated by one of their members on a television show. But if the backbenchers of the Liberal party do make a decision that the cabinet is not in favour of, the cabinet will not allow it. If I were a backbencher of that party I would dissociate myself from any committee of the house where such a situation arises. I do not want to serve on committees if every recommendation is to be considered in the way this recommendation has been treated by the house leader. I think he should take a very close look at himself in the mirror this evening to see why he has taken the position he has in respect of this subject.
I assure the minister that there was no intention to have a debate on this matter. It was only through the intervention of the house leader that it became necessary. I should like to refer to a situation which developed two years ago. On January 19, 1968, the seconder of the motion of the house leader today, Mr. Olson, asked this question:
Has the government received a request that the Governor in Council reverse the decision oi the Board of Transport Commissioners which allowed the C.P.R. to abandon the passenger service known as the Dominion? If so, will the government grant a hearing to reconsider this decision of the Board of Transport Commissioners?
The answer was:
The Governor in Council has a duty under the law to hear any appeal from the decision of the Board on matters of fact. There has been notice that there will be an appeal and it is the intention of the government to hear any appeal that may be made as expeditiously as possible.
I believe it is absolutely a must that the members of this house realize what section 53 of the Railway Act says. In this section it is very apparent that the Governor in Council has the right to take action on his own initiative. It is apparent that rather than embarrass themselves by failing to take action the
April 1, 1969

government would rather foist the responsibility on the committee which was set up to look into this transportation problem. I should like to read in part section 53(1) of the Railway Act:
The Governor in Council may at any time in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the Board-
That is as far as I shall read. It goes on with other language having to do with something not connected with this point. I suggest that the members of the cabinet, if they were sincere about dealing with the transportation problems of the people of Newfoundland, would initiate on their own an appeal to set aside the ruling of the Canadian Transport Commission.
In view of the fact that a committee was set up to go to the Atlantic provinces to look into the transportation situation, I believe the government has done a disservice to the people of Newfoundland on their 20th anniversary, as was mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), I suggest that surely deep down they should realize that they should do something of their own volition instead of waiting for something else to happen in this regard. They must realize that on the very same day the committee filed its report to which exception is taken, at least in respect of a part of it, the cabinet itself introduced a bill extending the freeze on maritime freight rates. I wonder whether it was a coincidence that both these things appeared on the same day.
At public expense a committee went to the Atlantic provinces to look into their transportation problems, including maritime freight rates, and on the same day it made its report the government introduced a bill. I believe this is beyond mere coincidence. The same thing applies in respect of the causeway. Many briefs were presented to us while we were down there. We all know the feelings of the people there concerning the causeway. Yet the government did not have the grace to await our return before making its announcement in respect of the causeway. This is a black mark against the government which will not be forgotten by the people of the Atlantic provinces.
I should like to conclude by imploring the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications to realize that they have a responsibility to the people who presented briefs to us during our tour of the Atlantic
Transport and Communications provinces. If we now to fail to make a report of any kind whatsoever, I suggest that every citizen of the country should say that never again do they want a committee to tour their area to find out at first hand what is going on. The people who presented briefs to us were sincere. They had been waiting for a year to do so. Many of them considered that the appeal they made to the committee was logical. Surely no one in Canada should have to be a lawyer to the nth degree, or whatever the legal terminology may be, to explain a situation, nor should we expect a citizen of this country to have to dig into the law books in order to become a part of this country.
I say that the people of this nation are entitled to far more consideration than the house leader has given them by asking the committee at this time to change what we agreed to unanimously, and the point should be made very clear that it was a unanimous decision of the committee. There may have been two members who did not vote but the decision of the committee was unanimous.
I should also like to mention the fact that the last motion with regard to the submission of the report was made by myself, in which the chairman was asked to report our concurrence in that report. The chairman was quite willing to report our concurrence in that report until it was held up by the house leader. I think ithis is a slam against the chairman and against every committee. I suggest that the Committee on Transport and Communications should be abolished completely if this is the treatment that can be expected from the cabinet.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In this regard I should like to introduce an amendment to the motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau):
That the said report be not now concurred in but that It be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with instruction that they delete from the report the paragraph thereof which reads as follows:
''Your Committee recommends that the Order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 5, 1969, be left in abeyance, until your Committee tables its complete report in respect to this question."


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I understand there is already an
April X, 1969

Transport and Communications amendment to the motion before the house. What the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is doing, in effect, is moving an amendment to an amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The position taken by the Chair earlier was that in light of the objections taken by members of the opposition the original amendment was held defective and therefore was disallowed. The hon. member has moved an amendment and I understand that if I put the amendment now I take the floor from him. Since he wishes to continue his remarks I will put the amendment when he has concluded.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in addition to putting forward the amendment to amend the report I also want to make some remarks on the matter itself.
With all due respect to the hon. members for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), I completely disagree with some of the points they make. When the President of the Privy Council rose to speak this afternoon, he pointed out that we had set up the Canadian Transport Commission in the last parliament to do certain jobs. One of these jobs was to take under advisement applications for the abandonment of rail and rail passenger service.
At that time I was a member of the transport committee and I recall we discussed the bill at great length. When it was voted on it was supported by the Conservative party, the New Democratic party and the Creditiste party. All parties in the house in the last parliament supported the idea of setting up a commission, which was a continuation of the board of transport commissioners, to deal with matters such as this so that we could take them out of the political arena. If we accepted what is being put forward today in this report, we would be accepting the general principle that even although parliament had set up boards to do certain jobs in a non-political way parliament still has the right to give directions and make recommendations to such boards when questions are under consideration.
Let me apply this principle to other boards that parliament has set up to do particular jobs. 1 refer to the Canada Labour Relations Board, the Tax Appeal Board and many others. They were set up to do certain tasks that parliament did not want to do itself and because parliament thought that the interests


of the Canadian people would be better served by them being done in this way.
If members of parliament either in committee or in the house were to make recommendations to a board while a matter was under consideration by that board, indicating which way parliament thought the board should rule on the question, it would be a travesty of parliament's own decision to set up the board in the first place. As the President of the Privy Council said this afternoon, we would be attempting to do by resolution something different from what we had already done by statute. In the last parliament we set up a commission by statute to do this job, and I think we should let it do it.
It has been said that there is an appeal provision in the Railway Act that was amended in the last parliament whereby decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission can be reviewed. It is very significant that no appeal was made by persons or groups in Newfoundland against the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to discontinue the Newfoundland rail passenger service. Yesterday I believe the hon. member for St. John's East said that he and five other Conservative members of the house did make an appeal. If that is so, then theirs was the only appeal.
I should now like to turn to the arguments that were put forward by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Moose Jaw. First of all, the hon. member for Oxford suggested that in making this report the committee was, in effect, making an appeal. I submit that is nonsense. Nowhere in the report is it suggested that we are making an appeal to the Governor in Council. Nowhere in the debate leading up to the adoption of the report was it suggested we were making an appeal. What the hon. member is trying to do is to rationalize a bad report.
In addition, the hon. member for Moose Jaw said that when people came before the committee in Newfoundland and recommended that the passenger service be continued they thought they were making an appeal. That is incorrect. I was on that committee during the tour and I pointed out to them that there was an appeal in law, that if they wished to make an appeal they had to do so to the Governor in Council.


John Leroy Skoberg: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Moose Jaw on a point of order.
April 1, 1969


John Leroy Skoberg: I would question the hon. member's reference to my being incorrect in my observation regarding the trip. The evidence will prove-and we have the transcripts of the evidence-that people were under the impression in many cases that they were making an appeal to our committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is a matter for debate, not a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: It is true that when some people came to the committee they perhaps thought they were doing enough to initiate an appeal, but it was pointed out to them very quickly that it was not enough. It is also significant that many of the witnesses who came to the committee and suggested that the railway passenger service be continued were representatives of unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress who have a whole raft of lawyers and advisers. If they thought that presenting a brief to the Transport Committee was equivalent to appealing under the Railway Act, then they certainly have bad advisers in their unions. It is obvious that they looked at the law, felt that they did not have good grounds for an appeal, and then decided to approach the Transport Committee-


Mr. Carter:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


William Warren Allmand: -or they should have known that-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for St. John's West on a point of order.


Walter C. Carter: I think the hon. member is as aware of the facts as I am. The leader of one union in Newfoundland did make an appeal to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). How high do you have to go to appeal?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: During the hearings in Newfoundland it was pointed out that although one union leader had sent a letter to the Prime Minister this was not sufficient to constitute an appeal under the Railway Act. I think that if he had consulted the legal and other advisers to the trade union movement he would have been told that that was the case.
On the point at issue, whether or not parliament or a committee of parliament should make recommendations to a board which is a court of record charged with making certain
Transport and Communications decisions, it is my belief we should not make such recommendations if we have decided beforehand to set up a board for that very purpose. With respect to the statement that this report represents the consensus of the committee or is a unanimous report and that to send it back to the committee would be wrong, I submit that the report does not represent the feelings of the majority of the committee who visited Newfoundland, because the day the committee made the report, five or six of the committee members had, unfortunately, to be absent on other committee work or to attend to serious business and could not go the committee.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Leroy Skoberg: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


William Warren Allmand: I and two other members of the house-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Moose Jaw on a question of privilege.


John Leroy Skoberg: I ask whether a majority of the members at any committee meeting would not make a majority report if they all voted unanimously for it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Moose Jaw was speaking I let him make his speech; I let him say everything he wanted1 to say. Unfortunately, he insists on intervening at this time to raise points that are not really relevant to what I am saying.


John Leroy Skoberg: Stick to the facts.


William Warren Allmand: All the members who visited Newfoundland, heard the briefs and studied the question unfortunately were not at the committee meeting and did not consent to the report the day it was adopted. The hon. member for Oxford, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and myself were away with the External Affairs Committee. I certainly would never have consented to this report, and I have been on the transport committee since 1965.
I was with the committee in Newfoundland and the maritimes, and I do not agree with the recommendations of this report. Therefore to suggest that by sending the report back to the committee we would be doing a disservice
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications to the committee system, or to the committee itself, is ill-founded. If we are to have a report which really represents the knowledge and feelings of those who went to Newfoundland, we must send this report back to the committee- How can hon. members of the opposition say that this report represents the feelings of the committee when so many who went to Newfoundland and studied the question were not in the committee the day the report was adopted? Opposition members are trying to sneak through a report which really does not represent the feelings of the majority of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I just want to be sure that I understood him. Is he telling me that a unanimous report of a committee does not represent the views of the majority of the committee?


William Warren Allmand: I am saying, Mr. Speaker, that the report, even if it is unanimous, does not represent the opinion of those who went to study the problem in Newfoundland and the maritimes, because unfortunately a large percentage of the members of the committee were not there the day the report was adopted in the committee.


Mr. Benjamin:: That is not the committee's fault.


William Warren Allmand: If it is not the committee's fault, do not try to say that the report represents the opinion of those who were in Newfoundland. It does not represent their opinion.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I know he would not want to mislead the house and leave the wrong impression on the record. However, the hon. member is speaking erroneously as to what took place the night the committee drafted the report. He was not there and consequently he is not in a position to speak authoritatively on what took place. In point of fact, the night the report was prepared nine Liberal members were present and those nine members had accompanied the committee on its tour of the Atlantic provinces.


William Warren Allmand: I understand that is not so, Mr. Speaker. In any case, I do not think that is the question. The point was made that under our new committee system we give great weight to reports' of committees. I agree with that. I think we should give great weight

to the reports of committees. But I am concerned with the weight of argument and the facts contained in the report. We expect a good report to come from a committee. When a report comes from a committee, it is for parliament in the final analysis to decide upon those things which the report suggests. Parliament is not Obliged to accept any report from a committee. Because there are so many committees we can serve on perhaps only two or three, and there are many important issues with which we cannot deal. As a result we leave it to a committee to study certain things in depth, and when they bring back a report we expect it to be well founded and to contain solid arguments from the committee's point of view.
In this particular case, as one who made the study in Newfoundland I find this report is very poor in its second recommendation because it suggests that we violate the principle of not making recommendations to a board, to a court of record, on matters which it has under its jurisdiction. My observations in Newfoundland lead me to say that from a transportation point of view the majority of the people are better served by the bus service than by the train service. The train service operated only three times a week. The bus service operates not only every day but has two trans-island and several local services every day. This service gives the people of Newfoundland a much wider variety of alternatives and a much better and faster schedule going from one end of Newfoundland to the other.
If this were a country of unlimited resources and could afford to continue the railway service even though very few people were using it, I would be all for it; I would say that we should continue the passenger rail service even though the majority of Newfoundlanders were not using it. But when we went before the people of Newfoundland they told us that their highest priority in transportation was trunk roads. If we are to use our resources in Newfoundland to the best of our ability, we cannot continue to support all modes of transportation when some are not being used by the public and are operating at great loss. We have to concentrate our transportation resources in those areas to which the government of Newfoundland gives highest priority, and it gives highest priority to the road service.
In my opinion, the only people who would be hurt by the discontinuance of the rail passenger service are the men who work on the railway. I suggest that in their case something
April 1, 1969

must be done. We cannot just stop this service and put these men out of work without finding them other employment. The C.N.R. has tried to provide them with alternative work in the bus service, but there are still some who will be laid off work. It is up to the railway and the government to make sure that they have work. But from the transportation point of view I submit that the bus service is providing better service to the people of Newfoundland. They recognize this because they are flocking in greater and greater numbers to the bus service and abandoning even more the rail passenger service.
In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat the argument made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), that if we are going to set up boards and courts of record to do certain ithings it is wrong for us, while the board or court of record is making its decision or has under review a certain question, to make recommendations to it as to how it should reach its decision. What we are then doing is interfering politically in a situation which we have said should not be political.
I submit that for these reasons the second part of this report should be sent back to the committee where all those who made the trip to Newfoundland would have the chance to contribute to the report. I am sure we would then come up with a much better report which would receive the acceptance of this house.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thought I would get the afternoon off so far as speaking is concerned, but with these amendments being moved it is not possible.
The reason the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace moved this amendment was to correct the defect in the amendment moved by the President of the Privy Council. But I notice that he has made another change, and it is with respect to this other change that I raise my point of order. The amendment of the President of the Privy Council had the following words in it:
-with instruction that they have power to amend the same by deleting-
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace changed it to read:
-with instruction that they delete from the report-
I submit there is quite a difference between giving a committee the power to make a
Transport and Communications change and instructing it to make a specific change.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: It would make their work a lot easier.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
would also spell the death of committees that much faster.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to move an amendment to the amendment?


Stanley Howard Knowles: shall ignore these voices that come from members in their seats. Citation 323(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads:
A report from a committee cannot be amended by the house, but it must be referred back to the committee.
We were told a number of times in the last couple of days that you cannot do indirectly what you are not permitted to d;o directly. That is precisely what this amendment does. It amends this report on the floor of the house. It says that this report must come back to us with the final paragraph deleted.
I submit that the amendment as the President of the Privy Council moved it in the first place was to give the committee power to make the proposed change. I am aware of the fact that citation 322 in Beauchesne's fourth edition seems to say that the house can give an instruction to amend the report in any respect. But I think you, sir, have been in this house long enough, and I have been here a little longer, to know that you have to go to the source of just abouit everything that Beauchesne put in his book. In this case he tells us where to go, to Bourinot's fourth edition at page 480. Actually the paragraph in question starts on page 479. It is a long paragraph and I will only read the pertinent parts, the first of which is as follows:
A report may be referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect. In this way a committee may regularly reconsider and even reverse a decision it has previously arrived at.
Then if you go through all of the words in that paragraph and come to the end you find the following sentence:
Consequently the correct procedure in all analogous cases is for the house to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
I do not favour this amendment at all but I think the government should at least put it in
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications proper form, and I submit that it is not in order for the house to be asked in effect to amend the report. We are not allowed to do that. It is out of order for the house to be asked to tell the committee precisely what it shall do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: that the house has the right to do is to give the committee power to make any change it wishes. It can even spell out what particular power it is giving to it. I submit that the form of the amendment in the first place was correct, but the form of the amendment as submitted by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is out of keeping with the usual way of doing things and violates the basic principle that you cannot amend a committee's report on the floor of the house. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they put their amendment in the correct procedural form.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on the point made by the hon. member. As he indicated Beauchesne is quite categorical. I suggest it is a sophistry or quibbling on the part of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The citation is perfectly clear. It reads:
When the motion to concur is proposed the report may be referred back to the committee for further consideration or with instruction to amend it in any respect.
There is none of this sophistry about the word "power" as opposed to the word "instruction". As Beauchesne indicates, it is a direct instruction.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is a misquotation of Bourinot.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is a direct quotation of Beauchesne. Why does the hon. member not open his ears?


Some hon. Members:: Temper!


Stanley Howard Knowles: What I said was that Beauchesne is misquoting Bourinot.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I was not misquoting Bourinot, I was directly quoting Beauchesne. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is coming through with great high fidelity today, but that empty sound box of his makes him come through a little more strongly this afternoon.


The point is that there is no limitation, as the hon. member seeks to invent, on the power of the house to give instruction in this regard. The house has full power to instruct the committee to make a deletion of the kind that is referred to in this amendment. I should like to refer to a citation at page 479 of Bourinot's fourth edition, and particularly to footnote (g) on which the citation is founded, part of which reads as follows:
It was then moved and agreed that the question be referred back, with instructions to present a plan of reporting to the house.
There is an example of specific instructions by the house to a committee. If the house wishes to re-open the whole question and review the entire report it can say so, but it is also in order for the house to instruct the committee to deal with one specific point in the report, the only one on which there is any real question.


Gerald William Baldwin: This is a most appropriate day, April 1, to have proceedings of this nature and I only hope, if I can correctly prophesy what will be done, that if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is ruled out of order the government, even on April 1, might be able to come up with the right form of amendment the third time.
If Your Honour will direct your attention to citation 322, I think the last sentence outlines what the house cannot or should not do, and the second part of the sentence indicates the method which can be adopted when the house wishes to send back to a committee for its consideration part of a report which it feels should be changed, amended or deleted. It reads:
It is not competent for a committee to reconsider and reverse its own decision-
Consequently the house can direct it to do so.
-but if the House resolves that such reconsideration is necessary-
Here I ask Your Honour to note carefully the pertinent wording.
-the correct procedure is for the House to give the committee instructions which will enable it to consider the whole question again.
The word used here is "consider", not "direct". I am reinforced in the view that this is the proper way to proceed because on turning to page 397 of Beauchesne I find form 95, "On Concurrence in a Committee Report", which
April 1, 1969

has apparently been accepted by the learned authority. It reads as follows:
The question being proposed "That the Final Report of the Select Standing (or Special) Committee on... be now concurred in,"
Mr. ... moves in amendment thereto, seconded by Mr. ..., "That the said Report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Select Standing (or Special) Committee on ... with instruction that they have power to amend the same so as to recommend that-
This conforms to citation 322 which says that the house may recommit a report to a committee with instructions that they have power to amend the same so as to make recommendations.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Your Honour has either to make that choice or to accept the terms of an amendment which gives mandatory direction to the committee and under which freedom is taken away entirely from the committee. If this is the kind of procedure which the house contemplates when dealing with select or standing committees, their proceedings will be reduced to a travesty. If the government or any of its supporters wish to move the type of amendment which is acceptable to the house, all they have to do is turn to page 397 for a model. Anything which does not resemble this should not be accepted by Your Honour or by the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their contributions to the discussion. I have in fact done some preliminary research in anticipation that this matter might be raised. The arguments put forward by the hon. member for Peace River and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raise points which need to be considered very carefully, but I suggest that there are citations other than those they have chosen which are categorical on this important question.
First, I should like to refer to the decision of Mr. Speaker Rhodes as found in Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, at page 690:
When a motion is made for the adoption of a report of a committee it is competent for the House to adopt it, to reject it, or to refer it back to the committee with or without instructions.
A citation which is probably more relevant and more particular, and one which in this particular case I have to treat as decisive in deciding this question, is Beauchesne's citation 326 as it appears on page 252:
The report of a Standing Committee should be considered final only when it is adopted by the
Transport and Communications House, because, until then, the House can refer it back to the committee with instruction to amend it in any particular.
I am therefore obliged to rule that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace is in order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) has at least scored one point today. I found if difficult to believe my ears when I listened to his speech in this debate. If the leader of the house ever had any doubt about the significance of this day I am sure he was convinced, having heard the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, that this was really April Fool's day.
The hon. member made a number of points to which too much attention should probably not be paid because I am sure the house did not take them seriously. One of the points he made was particularly unfortunate, however, because I am sure he did not wish to leave the wrong impression on the record. He suggested that the committee's report did not reflect the true recommendation of the committee. I can only believe that the hon. member reached this conclusion because he was absent on the night the report was drafted. Otherwise, there is no accounting for the fact that notwithstanding his absence nine of his hon. friends in the Liberal party were present. Those members were very diligent members of the committee during its tour of the Atlantic provinces and, like all other members of the committee, they worked very hard in studying all the transportation needs of the Atlantic provinces as well as on the preparation of the preliminary report which is now being disputed by the leader of the house and the hon. member who are seeking to have it sent back to the committee.
This is not the first occasion on which this matter has been raised in this chamber. We tried earlier, in the course of the preparation of the second report of the standing committee. Concurrence in that report was moved in the house, but it did not contain one resolution which had been approved by the majority of the committee. That resolution, which was adopted by the committee on November 28 prior to the preparation of the second report, was not at all dissimilar from the second recommendation of the fifth report of the standing committee with which the leader
April 1. 1969

Transport and Communications of the house quarrels so much. The resolution of November 28 stated:
That the Canadian Transport Commission be requested to postpone the implementation of its decision to abandon railway services in Newfoundland until such time as the committee travels to Newfoundland to study the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces.
That report was the subject of dispute in the house. It became the substance of a question of privilege on which I moved a motion. Mr. Speaker, in his wisdom, ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege and referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Why? Because the report did not contain the very resolution which is the essence of the second part of the fifth report now before the house, something which has again been challenged by the leader of the house.
The third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections which dealt with this matter is now before the house. We have asked on a number of occasions that the government bring this matter forward; it is order No. 54 under government orders. We made this request so that we might have the opportunity to debate the matter in the house. The request was denied.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: May I ask the
hon. member a question? Does he know that it is being called as the second order of business for today?


James Aloysius McGrath: I am glad it is being called as the second order of business for today. But if we could resolve the matter before us the debate on the third report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections might become superfluous. The point I am making is that if it had been called earlier there would have been no necessity for the debate in which we are now engaged. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace says that the fifth report of the Transport Committee is a travesty. I say to him that if the house accepts the amendment the consequence will be a travesty of our proceedings and it will make a mockery of the committee system. I say this as one who has the honour to be a member of the Transport Committee, as is the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), and the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney)-a very diligent and attentive member of the committee, I might say. These are the only members of the committee, I note, who thought it worth their while to be present in the house today for this debate. Apparently

the others did1 not even consider it important enough to come here to defend the very report which they prepared and agreed to unanimously.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I compliment hon. members who have shown interest and attention in the house today. I was impressed with the work of the Transport Committee, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding what the house leader may try to interject, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has had two outstanding chairmen. If the house leader had left the hon. member for Manicougan (Mr. Blouin) alone, he would have been an outstanding chairman. Unfortunately the hon. member for Manicouagan took ill and was in hospital. We are all happy to know he has recovered and is back in the house.
The hon. member's recovery, Mr. Speaker, is a mixed blessing. During his stay in hospital the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) was appointed the new chairman. He has been an outstanding chairman of committees of the House of Commons. He has been an outstanding member of the house for the past 20 years. It was an affront and an insult to the hon. member for LaSalle not to permit him to stand in his place today to defend his own report. One would think it was the house leader rather than the committee that sponsored the report. I hope before this debate concludes the chairman of the committee will have a chance to defend this report which was adopted unanimously by the committee.
I did some research on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I was rather impressed with the record of the committee. Since last September the committee has sat for 26 days, a total of 85 hours and 15 minutes. Following the reference from parliament of January 17, 1969, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications met for 16 continuous days, a total of 65 hours. Those hours were confined mostly to the committee's study of the transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces which the house leader finds so amusing. I can assure him if he lived in the Atlantic provinces he would not find them at all amusing.
During that tour the committee received 105 briefs and heard 174 witnesses. There was no time for relaxation or entertainment of any kind. The committee had to work morning, noon and night in the four capitals of the Atlantic provinces. The proceedings of the committee during its tour of the Atlantic provinces still have not been printed and yet
April 1. 1969

the committee is expected to prepare a report without having the evidence.
I want to emphasize to the house that this committee has been one of the hardest working committees with one of the most outstanding and hardest working chairmen in the house. The house leader has affronted the chairman and the committee by refusing to allow concurrence in the fifth report and by his despicable action this afternoon in not permitting the hon. member for LaSalle to defend his own report.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, in his haste to put both feet into it, neglected to mention a number of very important facts concerning the recommendation in relation to the Canadian Transport Commission. The Newfoundland House of Assembly on February 28 unanimously passed a motion calling upon the Canadian Transport Commission, the Canadian National Railways and the government of Canada not to implement its decision for at least two years.
This fact seems to have gone by unnoticed. It is strange that the cabinet minister from Newfoundland did not think it worth while to sit in on the debate this afternoon. I refer to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Jamieson). He too has adopted the patronizing attitude toward the Atlantic provinces that symbolizes this government. This is much to his own shame because he is a product of the Atlantic provinces.
I regret that the minister from Newfoundland is not in the house today to state what he said to the Canadian Transport Commission when he was a member of this house in 1967. At that time he felt it incumbent upon himself, in the company of other colleagues who then sat on that side of the house, to appear before the commission and ask them to delay taking off the passenger trains for at least five years. That is what the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo said when he appeared before the commission. I am sorry he is not here to defend the very worth-while stand he took before the Canadian Transport Commission and perhaps to influence his colleagues.
Why did the Newfoundland legislature, which is dominated by the same party that shares the philosophy of the government, feel obliged to pass a resolution to this effect? They did so because they knew this was the wish of all the people of Newfoundland. They knew that to truly represent the people of Newfoundland in their sovereign legislature they hail no alternative but to pass such a resolution. The federal government's action
Transport and Communications was a vindictive political affront to the people of Newfoundland because they did not support the Liberals in the last federal election. That is the only conclusion one can come to.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a qustion?


James Aloysius McGrath: My time is limited.


William Warren Allmand: Would the hon. member tell the house whether the government or the legislature of Newfoundland lodged an appeal with the Governor in Council in accordance with the Railway Act, in the same manner as was done by several of the western provinces when the old Board of Transport Commissioners allowed the Dominion train to be discontinued in 1966?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the hon. member who is so learned in the law. The parliament of Newfoundland is a sovereign parliament and it does not have to appeal to any court. It passed a resolution; presumably that resolution would be passed on to the Clerk of the House of Commons or the Secretary of the Privy Council, but we have not been able to draw that fact from the government. I might add that the resolution which was passed concerned the jurisdiction of the federal government.
One can only conclude that a resolution passed by the sovereign parliament of Newfoundland would, in the normal course of events and through the normal channels, be passed on to the government of Canada. But just to safeguard the situation the six Newfoundland Members of Parliament sitting on this side of the house drafted an appeal under the provisions of section 53 of the Railway Act and sent it to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 27. We did so because there seemed to be some doubt about the sovereignty of the Newfoundland parliament and its ability to pass a resolution recommending something to the government of Canada. There seemed to be some doubt whether or not that constituted an appeal, just as the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace questioned an official of the railway union when he produced a letter to the effect that he had appealed the decision by writing to the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said that that gentleman did not consult with legal counsel as to the proper way to lodge an appeal.
I am not a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, but section 53 of the Railway Act is very clear to me. It
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications contains two subsections, one providing for an appeal to the Governor in Council and the other for an appeal from a decision of the commission to the Supreme Court of Canada on a question of law. Nobody is appealing on a question of law, although I can produce evidence that there can be an appeal on a question of law. Section 53(1) states:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the Commission, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application: and any order that the Governor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding up on the Commission and upon all parties.
That is very clear, Mr. Speaker. When the chairman of the railway union wrote to the Prime Minister he obviously had read section 53 of the act. Surely the members of the Newfoundland legislature were aware of section 53 of the Railway Act, just as the hon. members who have the responsibility of representing Newfoundland on this side of the house were aware of section 53 of the act.
I would recommend to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, if he has time on his travels, that he read section 53 before he starts making any legal or learned dissertations on it in this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I hope that some of the hon. members opposite who seem constrained to make unintelligent utterances from their seats will feel the same constraint to get on their feet and make an intelligent contribution to this debate.
The government house leader said that this report contravened a statute of parliament and that it was ultra vires-in fact, I forget all the legal jargon that was used. But, Mr. Speaker, we on this side are aware of the law of the land. We have read the statutes. We have read the preamble to the National Transportation Act which covers such a possibility and which states that Canada's national transportation policy is expressly declared to be subject to legal and constitutional requirements, and further that the National Transportation Act is restricted to subject matters within the jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada relating to transportation. This declaration is nothing more than an expression of the constitutional and legislative limitations placed upon the parliament of Canada, but it is an important declaration in


that it cautions parliament to be at all times aware of these constitutional limitations in regard to legislation.
It may be that because of this awareness there exist certain areas of transport within which parliament cannot trespass. The act provides that one of the vice-presidents of the Canadian Transport Commission must be a barrister or advocate of at least ten years' standing at the bar of any province of Canada-this is referred to in section 7(2)-with very special powers upon any question of law that may arise during proceedings of the commission.
The Newfoundland railway passenger service is a part of what was known as the Newfoundland Railway. It was one of the assets of the government and of the people of Newfoundland which they brought into the union with them. As such the Newfoundland Railway consists of a form of mail, freight and passenger service, and as a consequence I submit that it is clearly outside the jurisdiction of this parliament, and I will tell you why.
The Newfoundland Railway is a specific, identified, and described mode of transport in the constitutional documents that cover the union of Newfoundland with Canada. I present this argument because the only thing we have heard from the house leader who has raised objection to this report is his contention that parliament does not have the authority to deal with the matter, that the matter is sub judice, that it is ultra vires, and everything else.
Even the Canadian Transport Commission, in its order authorizing the railway to withdraw from rail passenger service, referred to the Statutes of Canada containing the terms of union. I wish to quote briefly from the act of union in the 1949 Statutes of Canada as follows:
At the date of union, or as soon thereafter as practicable, Canada will take over the following services and will as from the date of union relieve the province of Newfoundland of the public costs incurred in respect of each service taken over, namely (a) the Newfoundland Railway-
Just to clinch it, Mr. Speaker, on April 1, 1949, 20 years ago to the day, on April Fool's day, by Order in Council P.C. 1454 the Governor in Council entrusted to Canadian National Railways the operation and management of the Newfoundland Railway, and the operative
April 1, 1969

words of that Order in Council as it relates to this particular matter are as follows:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, is pleased to order that, effective April, 1949, the Newfoundland Railway, including rights-of-way, wharves, dry docks and other real property, rolling stock, equipment, ships and other personal property ... the title to which is vested in His Majesty, be and they are hereby entrusted in respect of management and operation thereof to the Company on the terms in the Canadian National Railways Act expressly specified, namely, that such management and operation shall continue during the pleasure of the Governor in Council-
This matter is a constitutional one which cannot be dealt with by any delegated authority of this or any other parliament. It can only be dealt with, in my submission and on the best advice I can get, by an act of parliament of the United Kingdom amending Chapter 22 of the Imperial Acts, 1949, cited as the British North America Act, 1949, by an amendment of the Parliament of Canada act entitled an Act to Approve the Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada Statutes of Canada, 1949, and by amendment of the statutes of the province of Newfoundland. These three parliaments and these three only have the authority which the Canadian Transport Commission has now taken upon itself.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Aloysius McGrath: I would rather not at this point because 1 am making an argument. I will allow the hon. member to ask any question when I take my seat. The union of Canada with Newfoundland was entered into as a legal act and the terms were negotiated by the commission-type government we had prior to 1949. The successor to that commission-type government is the government of Newfoundland which is the Governor in Council and the legislature of New Newfoundland. They were indeed exercising their authority in this matter when they passed their unanimous resolution. It is again emphasized by section 1 of the constitution, the British North America Act, 1949, that these terms prevail as law against any power Canada may have under section 91 or other sections of the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1946.
I have already referred to Term 31 under clause A of the terms of union of Newfoundland with Canada. The parliament of Canada has no constitutional power to eliminate all or
Transport and Communications any of the public services provided at the date of union by the Newfoundland railway as a mode of transport. That, in my submission, is clearly spelled out by the terms of union in the statutes of Canada, the statutes of Newfoundland and the statutes of the United Kingdom. So rather than send this matter back to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications where it will die, and I can promise a slow and unnatural death, the government would be better advised to refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada to have this question of law settled. That would be perfectly within their right under subsection 2 of section 53 of the Railway Act.
What will be the effect if the report does go back to the committee? The government house leader will have his way as he is determined to. The distinguished hon. member for LaSalle will resign, because that is all he can do. He must resign. He cannot go back to the committee again. The government has questioned his report and has signified this clearly and without a shadow of doubt by moving to send the report back. The government has voted no confidence in the hon. member for LaSalle as the chairman of the committee and therefore he must resign. So we will have another chairman. I hope the hon. member for LaSalle will remain as a distinguished member of the committee under the new chairman.


An hon. Member:: How about the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace?


James Aloysius McGrath: I hope that when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace goes back to the committee he will find himself in Coventry, and if he does not know what that means it is something akin to purgatory. If the report is sent back it will have a devastating effect on the committees of the house and their future under the new rules. It will render the work of these committees nothing short of window-dressing for the government, nothing short of a method, albeit a surreptitious one, of keeping backbenchers in line and giving them something to do. That will be the effect of it.
Rather than upset the system of committees which is now functioning, rather than now dealing what could be a death blow to the committee system and rather than depriving the people of Newfoundland of this limited means of transportation, the government would be well advised to take cognizance of the very serious deficiencies which exist in
April 1, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion respect of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. Surely that is the reason we had this reference from parliament. If there are serious deficiencies in transportation in the Atlantic provinces, they reach critical proportions in the province of Newfoundland.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace said that the Newfoundland government placed high priority on trunk roads. Yes, we need trunk roads but until we have them we should have our railway. This is the whole point of the argument. The government and the people of Newfoundland cannot afford to build the system of trunk roads which is so necessary to provide an over-all transportation grid to serve the people of Newfoundland.
I commend to hon. members that they go to Newfoundland, as did the members of the transport committee, where they would see these deficiencies. All we have is a narrow gauge railway going from, east to west paralleled by a narrow gauge trans-Canada highway which is below trans-Canada highway standards because we could not afford to build up to those standards. It is one of the most dangerous highways in Canada. Only yesterday six members of my constituency were killed in a head-on collision on that highway. One of these days there may even be an accident involving a C.N. bus on one of these highways in which the hon. members seem to have so much confidence.
The government of Newfoundland is reasonable notwithstanding the fact that it is a Liberal government. The members of the House of Assembly are reasonable people. All we want is to maintain the rail transportation service in Newfoundland for at least two years. Then the whole hearing would be reopened by the Canadian Transport Commission with a view to examining the situation as it exists' at that time. Unless a miracle happens at that time it will become very evident-unless in the next two years we get the $500 million we need to build a trunks system of highways-that the situation is drastic. It will be found that the buses cannot provide the service and it will be found that it will be necessary not only to continue the buses but also the rail passenger service until the province, with the help of rich uncle Ottawa, as the premier of Newfoundland calls it, can afford to pick itself up out of the transportation doldrums and provide a system of transportation such as the people in the rest of Canada take for granted. Only then can we get the true picture.

If this report is sent back to the committee perhaps it will be forced to die there. If the house accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace it will be very difficult if not impossible for the committee to examine this matter in the course of the preparation of its final report. If this amendment passes and the report does go back to the committee it will be a dark day for parliament and a dark day for the people of Newfoundland.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


William Warren Allmand: May I put a question to the hon. member. He said he would answer my question when he concluded his remarks. The hon, member referred to the terms of union of Newfoundland and suggested that in those terms of union were provisions that prevented the parliament of Canada and the C.T.C. from discontinuing rail passenger service in Newfoundland. He suggested there is a strong legal argument against what the C.T.C. has done. If that is so, why has there not been an appeal in law to the Supreme Court of Canada?


James Aloysius McGrath: There is a very interesting question, Mr. Speaker, which opens up a very interesting subject. If hon. gentlemen will restrain themselves for a moment, I will answer the question. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace knows as well as I do, as does the hon. member for LaSalle, that we tried without success on a number of occasions to get the vice-chairman of the transport commission, who is supposed to be learned in the law, to come before the committee and explain this very point of law. Our request was categorically and callously refused by the chairman of the transport commission. I suspect that the real hand behind this whole gambit is the Machiavellian hand of the Czar Pickersgill.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should like at this point to advise the house that the questions to be raised at the time of the adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin-Air Canada; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Income tax; the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alken-brack)-Public buildings.
April 1, 1969



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the house on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in, and the amendment of Mr. Allmand.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I attended only two meetings as a member of the transport committee, serving only to replace one of my colleagues. I am not going to dwell at any length on the merits or demerits of the case of the "Newfie Bullet", but I rise to take part in the debate because of what seems to be happening to this parliament and its standing committees.
The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) who has moved this subamendment, amendment, or whatever it is, gave as one reason for moving it that he thought it was a bad report. He is fully entitled to that opinion. Colleagues in his own party may disagree with him on that point, and certainly members of the committee from other parties would disagree with him, but he is fully entitled to that opinion.
However, he said during the course of his reasoning in presenting the amendment, and in explaining why he thought it was a bad report, that one or two members of the committee on the government side were unable to be present when the report was prepared, and therefore the report was bad. That does not seem to me a relevant or sufficient reason to warrant the course of action now proposed.
The hon. member advised that he could not be present because he was in Europe with the external affairs committee, and that in itself was perfectly proper. However, it seems to me the hon. member had two choices. He could have been replaced on the transport committee by a colleague, though he may not have felt that a good course to take because his colleague would not have had the benefit of the trip to the maritimes. His other option was to be replaced on the external affairs committee. I realize this matter is extremely important to him, important enough for him to forgo a trip to Europe. In that event, he would have been present and party to all of the discussions that led to the drafting and
Transport and Communications preparation of this report. It seems to me that the question of who was there and who was not there is not really germane to this debate. The committee met properly with a quorum and unanimously voted for the report. Therefore, I submit that whether one or more members of the committee happened to be absent when the report was prepared is not a relevant point.
The trouble with this amendment now before the house is that if it carries it amends a report that was made outside the house, and in consequence the committee need not meet again. Prior to last June 25 I was one of those so-called younger members-even though I have lost my hair-who had dreams and ideals about what parliament could grow to be. I felt that it could be something better than it was, that even though it had done fairly well in the past it could do somewhat better. I was one of those who waxed loud and long, something I suppose of which I can be accused here. Nevertheless, I was one of the hundreds who ran for office as a member of parliament. Among that number there was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), many of those who now sit in the back two rows on the government side, and certainly those who sit in the back two rows of the party of which I happen to be a member.
We were told that parliament would be made to function better, more efficiently and more quickly; that committees would be given more responsibilities, made more relevant and important; that committees would have a larger role to play in parliament and thus ordinary members of parliament would have a larger role to play; that backbenchers would be more independent of the civil service, bureaucracy and the treasury benches; that backbenchers would be able in the course of carrying out their duties more properly to represent the views of their constituents, as well as their own views, in the standing committees of this parliament. I readily agree that often it is almost impossible for backbenchers to express their private views in this chamber without causing some embarrassment to members of their own party. However, they are more free to express their own views in the standing committees and in the reports of the standing committees, in the preparation of which they take part.
We then had the debate on the rules changes, and with the exception of the proposed rule 16A, with which we disagreed, all members spoke at length about what they felt parliament should become. Yet after all
7392
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications of this, Mr. Speaker, we are now seeing the emasculation of a Committee report that the government does not like.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Certainly.


William Warren Allmand: Is the hon. member saying that as a backbencher, as a member of parliament, he automatically accepts any report made by a parliamentary committee and that he would not try to amend such report?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. I want to say to my fellow M.P.'s who are in the backbenches on both sides of the house that they are now being party to destroying the very thing they wanted, the stronger and better functioning of committees, and the stronger and better functioning of members of parliament. We have over 100 new boys, so to speak, in this house. Most of them are on the government side. All of us new boys have to rely on the majority of those on the government side doing the most of the ball carrying with regard to the better functioning of parliament and its committees. May I say to my fellow M.P.'s who sit in the back two rows on the government side that, as a result of the amendment moved today, this is their last chance. They have a few hours in which to proceed behind the curtain', or whatever method they choose to use, to persuade the government house leader and those on the treasury benches not to do this.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: Only the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) has been trying to defend them.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I think even the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) would like to do this. I want him to know that, quite apart from party considerations, he would have the blessing of members of all parties in this house were he to do this, or at least try. I make the same request of other members on the government side who sit in the back two rows.
There is nothing in the recommendations in the committee report which makes the adoption of them by the government mandatory if the report is adopted. There is nothing that says the government is compelled to implement those recommendations. I have never yet heard of a recommendation that automatically carried with it a provision for its implementation. Surely, a recommendation is

not mandatory. Surely, because this is so, parliamentary committees are able to act more freely and more vigorously, and sometimes even a little independently, without worrying about causing embarrassment to the government of the day, no matter what its political stripe.
Surely, the adoption or rejection of this report by parliament is perfectly possible, without bringing into the question the kind of amendment we have before us. This amendment is not necessary; it emasculates parliament and prevents happening what all of us want to see happen in this and succeeding parliaments. But the government chooses to take these recommendations as mandatory instructions. Why they choose to do this I cannot for the life of me understand.
Therefore, the government would use its majority to get the kind of report it wants. Then, why bother with committees? The government could do this equally well without them. The government could have task forces, cabinet committees, or even groups of its own backbenchers, meet and bring in reports and reports and reports; it would not be necessary to go through this exercise in standing committees.
I plead with my colleagues on the back two rows of the government side of the house not to let this happen. This is their last chance. I ask them to do all they can in this respect; to at least try and prevent this happening. I ask them to show that they are trying. If they do not succeed, so what! They will be better men for trying. They should at least try, for if they don't try, they go back to becoming supine ciphers whose only role amounts to being and doing as they are told; and when the government house leader says "Jump", the only thing they can ask is "How high?" There is more to this question than just what is contained in the report of the transport committee.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Certainly.


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member says that all we, as backbenchers, on this side, do, is jump when the government says "Jump" and vote when they say "Vote". I would like to ask how many times the hon. member has voted against the instructions of his party.


David Lewis: That is a really intelligent question!
April 1, 1969


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have not, yet; but I would not be surprised it there will be such occasions during the time I serve as a member of parliament. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace will listen carefully, I will repeat what I just said. I said that government members on the back benches have this last chance, and if they do not at least try to prevent what is now happening in this house they can go back to being supine ciphers. I did not say they are that now. I think a large number of them, particularly the new members in the government back benches, are conscientious and have been doing an excellent job in this chamber and in our committees. There are many who want to continue doing so and are capable of doing so. They can try to prevent this happening, or go back to what they used to be. I think this is common knowledge. For too many years back bench members-I will use the phrase again-were supine ciphers whose role was to be and do as they were told. There was the rare exception, and those exceptions are not here any more.
If this amendment is carried, if the new members of parliament in particular in all corners of this house do not raise hell about it in whatever hours remain in this debate, we will all suffer; this parliament will suffer. The tragedy is that our fellow Canadians outside this parliament will say: Those fellows talked a good fight when they were running for office, but were not there very long before they went back to their old ways.
I hope that my colleagues from all parties in the house will rise in their places and state views that, if not in complete agreement with mine will at least be along similar lines. I hope they will cast the same warnings that I have tried to cast in these remarks.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I still think I was not hearing correctly a little earlier this afternoon when the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) stood in his place and made the remarks he did. I Still think he was trying to be funny, because I am sure if he were serious he would not have made the statements he did. It is the first time since I have been in parliament, as a neophyte-I admit I am a rookie member of parliament-that I have heard a member in the Liberal ranks stand up and criticize his own members, his own chairman and the mechanism which has been set up by the Liberal government for the conducting of business in this house. I can hardly believe it, and I still think that before 29180-4685
Transport and Communications the debate is over he will stand up and say he was just trying to be funny and was not serious at all.
Perhaps he was being coached by the house leader. In that sense, of course, he has an excellent coach. Perhaps in that sense he reflected the feelings of the house leader. He voted complete lack of confidence in his committee chairman. I have not known the committee chairman for the 20 years in which he has been an outstanding member of this house, but in the short time I have been here I have grown to respect and like him.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace stood in his place and voted complete lack of confidence in his own member, in his own committee and in the other members who were in attendance that evening. At that time almost a full slate of members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications arrived at a unanimous decision.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The committee, of course, had a very successful trip down east. I should like to say that I have heard many comments from members of the house and, from people in the area as a result of this visit, expressing the hope that the trip would be successful and that good work would result from this visit. However, I am beginning to wonder just how valuable the work was if this is the kind of attitude with which we will have to contend. I wonder now if it would not have been better to have used the money to build a monument to the C.N.R. rather than to continue in the way we are proceeding.
When I came to Ottawa to take my seat here I was under the impression, and I am beginning to wonder now if I was correct, that parliament occupied a supreme position in the hierarchy of Canadian power when it came to decision making. I was under the impression that parliament was omnipotent. I was also under the impression that the Canadian Transport Commission was a creature of parliament; that it had been set up by parliament to do a particular job, and that it was supposed to answer to parliament for the work it did. I was further under the impression that the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission had certain powers to make recommendations about railway work, and finally that the C.N.R. was a Crown corporation. But having listened to the debate in the last couple of weeks, and particularly in the last couple of days, I am beginning to wonder if there has not been a
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications reversal in this hierarchy. Apparently, the power of these bodies has changed so that the Canadian Transport Commission is now on top and parliament is second. I do not know where we put C.N.R. but the important fact is that parliament has assumed a second rate position in terms of the decision making process relating to transportation in Canada. This is the only conclusion I can draw, because certainly parliament does not have the supreme power in this situation.
In the two or three minutes I have left, I should like to give a brief resume of some of the events connected with the situation because I still feel many hon. members are not fully aware of some of the facts surrounding the case. This is, perhaps, the reason for the confusion in the mind of the house leader. As everyone knows, in 1949 Newfoundland became the tenth province of Canada. At that time we entered into terms of union with the Canadian nation. One of these terms of union as described by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) this afternoon in some detail, dealt with the responsibility of the federal government relating to transportation. I am referring to term 31 under which the province was relieved of its responsibility to maintain the rail passenger service, which responsibility was assumed by the federal government.
The government then delegated this responsibility to the C.N.R. which has been operating under that kind of arrangement ever since. About two years ago the Canadian Transport Commission was appointed and was given certain terms of reference and responsibilities with respect to decisions regarding rail passenger service as well as other modes of transportation in Canada. The railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission then made a recommendation that the rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland be abandoned. The Canadian Transport Commission accepted this recommendation, subject to certain conditions.
I should now like to make a point which has previously been made, and I hope the house leader will pay some attention because he might learn a thing or two on a subject with which apparently he is not very conversant. The Canadian Transport Commission decided to abandon the rail passenger service in Newfoundland subject to the provision of a bus service of acceptable standards. Only a few minutes ago my friend to my left made reference to the fact that the C.N.R. has already agreed to extend the service beyond

the April 15 deadline which was set by the C.T.C. The hon. member for St. John's East pointed out that the provincial legislature reached what was, I believe, a unanimous decision to recommend that the train service be continued. Here we have two bodies, one a provincial legislature and another merely a Crown corporation, both of which made a recommendation to extend the date beyond the April 15 deadline. The committee of the house visited the Atlantic region, and both previous to and since its visit, it has made reports on the state of transportation in the Atlantic region, one of which contained the recommendation now before us.
The committee is asking parliament to use its power, given under the Railway Act, to do exactly what it is empowered to do under this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock.


Mr. Deachman:: It is not six o'clock yet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 pm.
It being six o'clock, the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
John Howard Lundrigan: Several hon. members had an opportunity this afternoon to review in some detail the principal events leading to the debate in which we are now engaged. I certainly do not wish to take time reiterating what has already been said.
My hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) made a presentation which set the record straight and left no doubt in anybody's mind that this issue should never have been allowed to materialize let alone reach the point where there is a danger of the committee report not being accepted. I am referring to the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which was agreed to unanimously by all members present; the only exceptions were one or two absentees. This report is now before us for concurrence but it is being vetoed by the leader of the house and by several other hon. members who have been browbeaten or induced by some means or other to adopt his way of thinking.
I had intended to speak about the railway question, but perhaps the railway is now a
April 1, 1969	COMMONS
minor issue. This is something very significant. I am suggesting here as a Member of Parliament from Gander-Twillingate in Newfoundland that the railway in question is not really the important issue this evening. I am saying that even though there is a danger of losing the railway in our province, the only passenger service in the whole island, this is not nearly as important as the fact that the future of the committee system in this house is in danger. As things are, the whole structure will, in my opinion, come to nought if the proposal put forward by the leader of the house or by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, whichever is accepted, is allowed to pass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am one of the members who came here last fall. I almost accepted the philosophical position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during and subsequent to the election when he talked about the democratization of parliament, about participatory democracy or some such animal-a great phrase, but we don't know what it means back in Newfoundland. There was a great statement about involvement, about all hon. members becoming involved1 in the legislative process, including all those who sit on the Liberal back benches. The could help to shape legislation, so it was said, by attending the committees, bringing in amendments, pressing their points of view, moving motions and then having them brought before the House of Commons. We were all enthralled by this idea of an efficient parliament and a great committee system.
I accepted this point of view to some extent. I thought: I am a new member and this sounds good to me. I almost fell for the arguments which were put forward. Then I had occasion to experience exactly what took place in those committees, events leading to the shame with which we are faced today. Some hon. members may be wondering why I am upset about this. Well, the people of Canada thought that because of the changes made in the rules the committee system would become so effective that even Thomas More would have felt his Utopia left nothing to be achieved in this House of Commons. I took part in the committee system feeling we had a means by which all members regardless of political affiliations would have the opportunity of making a contribution to the legislative process. But this, I learned in a hurry, was a false assumption on my part.
DEBATES	7395
Transport and Communications
I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to mention an incident which took place in the Fisheries Committee. We sat on that committee for ten hours on two separate days trying every procedure we knew in an attempt to bring in certain basic amendments. It was a complete waste of time. This was before the television broadcast involving the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). Eventually, I walked out of that committee. I remember saying: gentlemen, this is it, for me. I am walking out. It is a waste of time. The people of Gander-Twillingate did not elect me to come here and waste my time debating hopeless issues.
This action of mine in walking out of the committee was regarded by some members as something not altogether manly; I was not playing the game. A couple of days later the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) was said at least by other members of the house to have disclosed, in the course of a television program, that government members on the various committees had been instructed not to accept any amendments proposed by the opposition but to vote against them en bloc, thereby destroying the whole idea of the committee system.
That is what concerns us tonight. We are not talking only about the Bullet. We are talking about the whole committee system of the House of Commons. The chairman of this particular committee has been in the house for 20 years. He has the great respect of all members of the House of Commons. This chairman, after presiding over a well-informed committee, made a recommendation. Yet the leader of the house says it has no place on the floor of the Commons.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) had many avenues open to him. Here are some of the things he could have done. First, he could have instructed all his back benchers on the various' committees to vote against any move which would result in anything being done to cause embarrassment to the government. In other words, he could have instructed his members to play no role in the legislative process of this country. I submit that this has actually been done, or else one of the members of the Liberal party has broken faith with that party.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In the event there were unpopular presentations or amendments made, the second avenue open was to refuse to bring these into the house. At the present time we have before us
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications a prima facie case of privilege which indicates an attempt was made to do this. This question will come up in the very near future.
The third approach to stymie the whole effort of the committee system would be to rely on a point of order in the house in the hope the Speaker would go along with it, thereby preventing the committee from making its report. The government does not allow its members to go along with legislative amendments or to accept the committee report in the house. If the report does get to the house, they hope to prevent its acceptance on a point of order.
The fourth approach, Mr. Speaker, would be to ask the house to return the report to committee for revision. The fifth approach would be to completely nullify the effect of the recommendations. This is what we have today.
The opposition house leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), both indicated the effect of this particular amendment proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand). The obvious way to have handled it would have been to allow the recommendation of the committee to be placed before the house. This is what should have been done. The house did not have to accept the recommendation, but an opportunity should have been given to present this recommendation and request concurrence in the report. This procedure would allow the house to make its decision.
When looking across the chamber this evening, I am led to wonder how many members would vote in the event they were forced to vote on this issue. There were roughly 20 members of the committee present the evening the report was recommended to parliament. They all voted in favour, with the exception of two, who abstained.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I want to remind the hon. member that he must deal with the amendment before us and not reflect on a vote in committee or on the procedural aspect of the problem settled earlier today.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence to hear what I have to say because, as members of the committee, we are in an. awkward position. We have 20 members of our committee present this evening and this house is voting non-confidence in

our committee. This is perhaps the most important point.
I was a member of the committee at the time. I am still on the committee. We, on the committee, have no choice but to resign if this house sends back this report suggesting an amendment which would nullify the effect of our report with respect to the particular transportation problem. The house is also asking for a vote of non-confidence in the chairman of the committee. This chairman, who has been a member of this house for 20 years, has been embarrassed to the point where he is ready to resign. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace must be ashamed to sit here this evening after having made the observations he did about his own committee chairman.


William Warren Allmand: On- a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. At no time when I spoke this afternoon did I refer to the chairman of the committee.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will not refer to the hon. member by name. The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace threw his boomerang.
We are embarrassed as members of this committee. We feel we have no alternative but to resign. The house leader is asking for a vote of non-confidence. His cohort, whom he coached so well, is asking for a vote of nonconfidence in our committee chairman. I hope members opposite will not tolerate this kind of aggression, subjugation, and bally-ragging by the house leader. We are being intimidated because we have made a recommendation. I do not understand the sign language by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, but I can suggest what it means.
We contend, as a committee, we can make a recommendation on anything connected with the government of this country. This is the supreme government of Canada in this chamber. Perhaps only a few members have indicated a lack of confidence in the Committee. I believe the people of Canada are generally correct when electing members of parliament. I hope they have not made too many mistakes.


An hon. Member:: They made one we know of!


John Howard Lundrigan: There will be a few tears shed in Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the constituencies of other hon. members who have made so many observations. I will not say anything more than this. Hon. members can do exactly what they please in governing this
April 1, 1969

country, but I will not tolerate the whole system of government going by the wayside because of the insubordinate, arrogant, bally-ragging attitude of the house leader and some of his cohorts who toe a very doubtful political line.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In
recent weeks I have come to the conclusion that this particular standing committee has, in some strange way, become the proving ground of the decline in the hopes of those who thought the committee system under the new rules would be good and helpful to this parliament. Here, I am unlike my colleague from Oxford.
I did at one time think the development of greater significance and importance in committees would help the efficiency and functions of this parliament. I may say I have grave doubts about my earlier views after listening to what has gone on today and after noting with pained attention what has happened to many of the recommendations and actions of this particular committee in recent weeks.
Time after time there are occurrences which prompt even the most kindly of us to ask disquieting questions. Why has this particular committee come to be regarded as a transgressor? Has it erred grievously in some way that it should be singled out, not for a runaround, but a kickaround? Would it be because through the vigilance, persuasiveness and alertness of Newfoundland members on the committee and the perception and broadmindedness of committee members from other provinces and other parties that they came out with points of view which were somewhat inimical to certain members of the treasury board? I wonder about that.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I had expected this afternoon that the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) would lead off the discussion. I, too, know that he is a very able chairman, a sound and reasonable man. I have had the honour and privilege of sitting with him in this house for a good many years. I think highly of his judgment and of his motivations. No, I do not think it is 20 years as the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) mentioned, but it is quite a while. As you approach the 50 year mark, the years seem to be more heavy, but it is quite a while since the hon. member and I were first colleagues together.
I was not a member of the Transport and Communications Committee, but I did see it
Transport and Communications in action when it visited Charlottetown. I heard the briefs which were presented by many important bodies from the province of Prince Edward Island, and many distinguished and concerned citizens. I heard the views and the discussions on the important and grave transportation problems of that province. I thought that the committee was impressed by the briefs which it had heard and I know, because I know Charlottetown, that the petitioners and others were favourably impressed by the committee, especially by the studious impartiality and the obvious concern of the distinguished chairman.
But what happened? On the very most important question concerning the province of Prince Edward Island, one of the most important in the region, the committee did not get time to get back to Ottawa to sort out all it had heard at Charlottetown, to blend together the contributions of its various distinguished members, before the government announced to Prince Edward Island, to Canada and to this house that that which 'they had solemnly promised to another government in Canada, namely, the government of Prince Edward Island, would not in fact be delivered. So, the people of Charlottetown although they enjoyed seeing ithe members of the committee, for all intents and purposes, and for all practical purposes might have saved their breath, their ink, their paper and their time.


James Aloysius McGrath: The government made a fool of the P.E.I. government.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The government put the chop to the Northumberland causeway without bothering to hear what the committee recommended as a result of its on the spot investigation. It was a thorough investigation by some very able men, and I was proud in my native province 'to claim them as my colleagues, regardless of their party labels.
This, Mr. Speaker, was contemptuous; it was callous; it was degrading. But apart from what happened to the P.E.I. causeway, that is not the issue here, Mr. Speaker. What is even more important is what has happened to the committee system. The committees are an emanation of this house; they are creatures of this house; they are part of this house. They are all of these. Surely, we have not reached the stage where responsible government is merely a chimera of the past. The executive itself rests upon the confidence of parliament, the same body which creates the committees,
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications and let there be no suggestion that the committees are mere objects of executive direction, as we saw attempted to be carried out today.
This, Mr. Speaker, is not a very good day for those who love parliamentary government. We have an item before the house, the report of a committee-an emanation of the house-and the chairman of the committee retains his seat. The house leader on behalf of the executive stands and moves a motion which is nothing but a rebuke to that committee, an emanation of this honourable house. That is an indication of the views of the government on the role of the committee, and indeed on the role of any committee.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), pointed out, the committee very carefully kept within its jurisdiction and recommended a course of action. But in the eyes of the house leader of the government party it was not allowed to do any such thing. Have we reached the stage where a standing committee of this House of Commons would dare not recommend a policy for consideration which accords not with 'the views of the executive, of the government? Can a committee not bring in a suggestion which is unpleasing to the government?
Do we now tonight vote that a committee be instructed to bring in a recommendation in accordance with the views of the executive? Surely, this is not the situation. Are we going to vote that the committee be instructed to do so and so? Is there to be a directive to them? What a term of reference for a committee; what a role for a committee, for a committee which was going to make parliament so effective, so efficient, to bring in the fresh air of functioning participatory democracy. Do we say to them, "This you must do, this you must recommend and no other."
I ask this question and it is not a rhetorical question: when the committee meets, if it decides not to follow the diktat of the house leader, what then? Surely, a group of men, members of this house, have a right to vote yes or no? Surely they can decide to approve or not approve of the directive given by the house leader?
What will happen if they should say no? And it is conceivable under certain circumstances, of attendance or otherwise, that they might say no. Then, what happens to our system of committees? Could a committee say no under these circumstances?
If the house votes as the house leader in his Mark III edition would have it and direct it,

and if this committee cannot, may any committee at any time ever recommend anything which it knows that the executive would dislike? We are treading towards a very dangerous precedent, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps at a later stage the empiric judgment of committee members might be not only that they dare not recommend something that they know that the executive dislikes, but they might demur from recommending anything that they think the executive dislikes. Then how efficacious is the committee system? There is great danger in the suggestion so brazenly put foward tonight.
Someone mentioned the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). I wish he were here because he could tell things that I do not know. I do not go to committees instructed. I don't belong to a monolithic party, and I don't want to. I will never belong to a monolithic party; I will stay in my own party.
This is a most serious situation, Mr. Speaker. I am saddened because, as I said a few minutes ago, I did disagree with some of my colleagues. I thought the committee system would be practical, useful, sensible. Perhaps it was a mistake on my part. Perhaps it represents a triumph of hope over experience. I have been here over a decade and I thought that behind all this there was good will, that there was regard for the parliamentary system. I suppose it only proves, Mr. Speaker, that I am not really as old as I look, and I have been told this many, many times.
I do not want to monopolize too much time because I know many members want to talk about this fundamental issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear,
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I appreciate the courtesy of that. Some people talk with their seats and some with their hands. Occasionally, some use their minds, but if the letter of the spirit of the diktat-and I use that word again-is carried out tonight, standing committees of this house will be bereft of power, of will, of influence. They will be denigrated; they will become a mere chimera without influence and without value. This I do not want to see. This is not a great day for parliament; it is not a great day for the house leader of the government party. I am sorry he is not here tonight. There will be many things said about that hon. gentleman, but I think he will never be described as a House of Commons man. When I heard the house leader of the government
April 1, 1969

party presume to reflect upon the knowledge of parliamentary procedure possessed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I thought presumption had reached the apogee of distastefulness. If the hon. house leader is here for 40 years, which is highly unlikely, he will never muster a one-thousandth part of the knowledge of house procedure possessed by the venerable member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I began taking an interest in the activities of the House of Commons in the days of C. D. Howe. I was not a member then; I was in the gallery. Tonight and today I thought that the hon. house leader had a good deal in common with the hon. C. D. Howe. But there is one difference; he has the manner of that great man but not the matter. Without the matter he will not be nearly as successful.


William Warren Allmand: May I ask a question of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie): Was the hon. member suggesting that the House of Commons should accept a committee report without any weighing of the evidence? Does he suggest-


James Aloysius McGrath: How many speeches do you want to make?


William Warren Allmand: -that the House of Commons should automatically accept any report set down by a committee, or should the House of Commons, as the sovereign body of the Canadian people, have the right to discriminate, accept and reject reports as it deems fit?


James Aloysius McGrath: The hon. member has foot and mouth disease.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would be pleased to deal with that question. There has been a great deal of talk about the Newfoundland "Bullet". I will say this. The house, I am confident, would have been delighted to deal with the report had the discussion been led off by the chairman of the committee. However, when the report is torpedoed in the initial stages by executive diktat, I say that is not the way to deal with it.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Hillsborough would permit another question. Would he indicate whether or not he feels inasmuch as the government house leader has raised the question of one aspect of the report
Transport and Communications being sub judice, that a good deal of the work of the committees would be in that category following the reasoning of the hon. house leader?


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I think there is a good deal of logic and knowledge in that observation, as in all the observations of my colleague.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, on November 28 last year my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) presented a motion to the Standing Committee on Transport to the effect that the decision to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland not be implemented until the committee on transport was given a chance to visit Newfoundland. The motion was passed by a majority of the members of the committee at that meeting. Of course, under normal circumstances this motion would have formed a part of the report of the committee to the house. It is obvious, however, that the motion was a great embarrassment to the government, so it was arbitrarily omitted from the report of that committee to the house. Next the matter was considered by the Committee on Privileges and Elections where it was clearly shown that the omission of the motion from the committee report had been improper, and without any legal or procedural justification.
Finally, we had the report written with the heavy hand of government direction to the effect that the original motion was not properly before the committee. In the meantime, the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications visited the Atlantic provinces, including the province of Newfoundland. On the basis of the evidence heard during its visit, it recommended that the order of the Canadian Transport Commission authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 15 be left in abeyance until the committee tabled its complete report in respect of this matter.
Again, it is obvious that this recommendation was an embarrassment to the government and especially to the government house leader. An attempt was made by the house leader and by the government to kill this report. The unfortunate part of this whole thing is that we have one agency of government which has set about deliberately, in collaboration with two other agencies, the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian National Railways, to kill Newfoundland's rail passenger service.
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications
What is most appalling about the whole thing is that they have now connived-I am referring especially to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald)-to cover up the murder trail. They have in essence killed the "Bullet" and are now trying to cover up the murder trail.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: They are trying to kill the opposition.


Walter C. Carter: Having been beaten during sittings of a committee, they have created a series of events which I believe have seriously undermined the basis of all the reforms of rules and procedures of this house. The government's argument in bringing in the sweeping reforms was that public business would be more effectively and more efficiently dealt with if more of the work of the house were placed on the shoulders of committees. But this could only hold true so long as every member of this house believed the committees would function fairly and openly, without pressure from the government. Bullying of committee chairmen, hiding the real intent of committee proceedings and regimentation of government members on committees has made a mockery of the committee system.
If this sort of thing continues and if the government can simply tailor the business of every house committee to suit its own whims, what is the use of our committee system? Not only has this government conspired with the Canadian Transport Commission and the Canadian National Railways to kill the "Bullet", what is much worse is that it appears to have killed house reform and the committee system as well. It seems obvious to me that this government has become so arrogant that it cannot tolerate even a slight reverse in one meeting of a committee which has been set up according to our committee system. If this is to continue we might just as well pack up, go home and let the government, the government house leader and the Prime Minister rule by decree. This naked exposure of dictatorial power is shocking. It is so completely out of proportion to anything warranted by the circumstances that it makes one wonder how this government would act on major issues. This government's action of twisting facts and doctoring records in this case is like using a sledge hammer to kill a fly.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
The story of Newfoundland's rail passenger service and the determination of the people of Newfoundland to retain that service is well known to this house, and indeed to all

Canadians. I do not think government members can overlook the fact that, as my colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has pointed out, the Newfoundland legislature, speaking as it does for the people of Newfoundland, has adopted a resolution to the effect that the decision to abandon the rail passenger service be deferred for at least two years. That is the wish of the Newfoundland people, the wish of the rail unions in Newfoundland and of pretty well all people in all walks of life. But the government, the Canadian Transport Commission and Canadian National have decided that the wishes of the Newfoundland people in this regard must be ignored.
I might remind hon. members that 20 years ago today 300,000 Newfoundlanders became Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter C. Carter: I hope, as do all the people of Newfoundland, that the rest of Canada and my hon. friends opposite will never regret having joined us in 1949, because we were glad to have them. But it is strange that on this the 20th anniversary of our joining Canada, or of Canada joining us, the six members from Newfoundland should be required to stand in their place in this parliament and fight for that which we feel is our right, namely the continuation of the rail passenger service in our province. This is a shame.
I am wondering what we have to do in this regard. The Newfoundland people are unanimous in their opposition to the plan of Canadian National, and of this government, to abandon our rail passenger service. The Newfoundland legislature is opposed to it. The unions are opposed to it. As I have already said, people in every walk of life have opposed it.
Despite this, the house leader appears to be obsessed with destroying that which we feel is rightfully ours. It is not hard to understand why this obsession exists. I charge the government house leader with being vindictive because his party did not fare too well in Newfoundland on June 25. I suggest that this is his, and his government's way of getting even.
Motions were made in the transport committee that were adopted and approved by the committee. The committee visited Newfoundland to hear evidence from people from all walks of life. The committee came back to Ottawa and pretty well unanimously agreed that the decision to abandon the railway be
April 1. 1969	COMMONS
set aside pending completion of its final report.
Despite this, the government house leader is determined to see that course is not followed. Despite the recommendations of the transport committee, the representations made to this parliament by Newfoundland members, the fact that the Newfoundland legislature opposes this step and the major unions and other bodies in Newfoundland are against this move on the part of Canadian National and the Canadian Transport Commission, the government house leader insists that the motions that were made in the committee were wrong, and that any recommendations made by the committee to set aside the decision should not be accepted.
As a Canadian of 20 years standing and as a new member of this house, this whole exercise has been quite disgusting to me. This power that has been exercised by the house leader-


An hon. Member:: Nothing should worry you old colonial boys.


Walter C. Carter: This is not a laughing matter. I ask the hon. member to speak from his seat. He might get picked up by Hansard, which is the only chance he will have. If the hon. member wants to say anything let him stand up and speak from his seat, instead of making snide remarks. We are old colonial boys and we are not ashamed of it. We are not ashamed of being colonials. Now we are Canadians and we want to be proud, but you are not making us very proud, and neither is your house leader. I recommend to your house leader-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
I ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the motion before the house.


Walter C. Carter: If hon. members opposite will confine themselves, sir, I will.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for St. John's West has the floor.


Walter C. Carter: I seriously recommend to the house leader that he start wearing a beard and smoking cigars, to take on the image.


An hon. Member:: What does that mean?


Walter C. Carter: Figure if out if you want to. The matter we are discussing here is a very serious one. What we are fighting for is for Newfoundland to be allowed to have rail passenger service. The committee on transport 29180-4691
DEBATES	7401
Transport and Communications feels this service is essentially Newfoundland's.
One hon. member opposite referred to the fact that priority has been given to the construction of a road system in Newfoundland. As my hon. friend from St. John's East said, until such time as Newfoundland can afford to spend $500 million on developing an adequate road system we must be allowed to retain our rail passenger service. I urge the government to allow Newfoundland to retain this service because it is essential to the well being and the transportation needs of the Newfoundland people.
I am at a loss to understand why this great effort has been made by the government, especially by the house leader, to deprive Newfoundland of this essential service. As I said before, the committee passed motions and made recommendations. Despite this, the government house leader still insists that, because of some technicality, the motions were improperly presented, that the committee did not decide to include the motion in the report of the committee to the government.
I urge hon. members opposite to give this matter very serious consideration because it means a great deal to Newfoundland. It also means a great deal to the future of the Committee system of this parliament. The committee travelled to Newfoundland as well as to the other Atlantic provinces. It heard some 170 witnesses and received 105 briefs. If all this is to be ignored, I contend that our trip east was not necessary. It has been a complete waste of money.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
The matter being discussed tonight is not only a question of whether Newfoundland can retain its rail passenger service; it is a question of whether the committees system and the new rules will work in this parliament. If committees make reports based on their findings and evidence as they travel across the country, and committees are to be bullied and their reports completely ignored by the house leader and the government, I contend that we might as well all pack up and go home because the committees system will not work.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part briefly in this debate because I think it has assumed an importance far beyond anything one might have anticipated at the start. As I see it, the
April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications issues now facing us are not just those covered in the substance of the report, namely, matters having to do with transportation problems in the Atlantic provinces; those issues have been surpassed by the simple question whether members of parliament when they serve on committees are free to vote as they wish, or whether they must vote in the one and only way they have been told they must vote.


An hon. Member:: That has not yet been decided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member says that has not yet been decided. I hope it will not be decided. But if the amendment moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) is carried, and if the motion as amended is carried, this house will be saying to its members on the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that there is only one way in which those members can vote on a certain issue. I think this is a very serious matter, and I hope the house will think very deeply about it before it votes on the question.
I had something to say yesterday about the committee system. That was when we were debating a point of order. I have long felt that we should upgrade our committees and I am pleased with the changes we have made in our rules looking toward that end. I am pleased also that we, if I may say so, are considering in our Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization other things that we may yet do to upgrade the work of our committees. I believe the day will come when we may even have another building especially for committees, when there may be times that the house does not sit because important committees of parliament are meeting. But we do not move in that direction if the first time a committee brings in a recommendation which the government does not like, that committee is slapped down, not just by a rejection of its recommendation but by an instruction that it must go back into session and vote this way, or else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do
not know who thought up such an idea, Mr. Speaker. I thought this was a free parliament. I thought we voted as we pleased in this House of Commons and in our committees. But this apparently is not so.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is it the same question the hon. member has asked other members?


William Warren Allmand: No.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He has changed the
wording.


William Warren Allmand: The motion states that a cer tain paragraph of the report must be deleted If that paragraph is deleted, what is to prevent the committee from bringing in another paragraph on the same problem but with different wording and with a different recommendation? Is the hon. member suggesting that because the committee is instructed to delete this paragraph, it cannot bring in another paragraph on the same subject but in a different tenor?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I really give the hon. member credit for more procedural knowledge than that. If the motion as amended passes and this matter is referred back to the committee, so far as this issue is concerned this is its total term of reference. This is all it can do, namely, redraft the report with the offending paragraph omitted. I submit that on all counts this is nothing other than a case of straight dictation. Some of my hon. friends who have interrupted have said that we have not passed this yet. I hope we will not pass it. I would rather see this matter get into government orders and stay there for the rest of the session, than be passed, because I think it would be a black day for parliament to take this stand of saying to a committee: This is what you must do. You have no other choice. You have been given the word and you must do what you are told.
I thought when my hon. friend rose that he was going to ask the question he has asked several other hon. members, namely: Does every recommendation of a committee have to be accepted? The answer to that question is clearly no. I do not think it follows automatically that because a committee makes a recommendation, it has to be accepted by the house or the government. That is what these various bodies are for, to consider things at their various stages.
Indeed, I think it would have been procedurally correct for the government to have said today: We do not like this report. We ask the house to reject it. That would have been a bit of a slap in the face, but at least it wculd have been procedurally correct if the government openly and honestly had
April 1, 1969

said: We do not agree with this recommendation and we want the house to turn it down. Then, of course, it would have been up to the house to decide the matter by its vote. Another course the government could have followed, which would have avoided this debate which has proceeded on and off for two or three days, and the great deal of the nastiness we are experiencing, would have been just to accept the report moved by the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard). Has not the house the right to express the view that these things said in the report ought to be considered; ought to be done, if you will? If that had happened, if the report had been concurred in, the government of course could have acted upon it or it could have come back in a few days and said to us: We have considered these things, but we do not think they should be carried through.
That happens over and over again. If you will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to cite an example, though you will be watching me to see that I do not get too far into the substance of it. I am very conscious of this matter. A committee made a unanimous recommendation to Parliament on May 8,1967, that the pensions of retired civil servants be increased. The government said it was giving consideration to this recommendation. The government has not yet acted upon it; but at least we know where to put the blame. The government has refused to act on that recommendation, but it still stands as a recommendation of the committee.
But in this case the government is not prepared to let the recommendation stand as a recommendation of the committee. It is not prepared to let the house decide whether it wants to say yes or no to this recommendation. It is asking the house-and it has a majority, no doubt, to go through with it if it wants to do so-to say to the committee not only that we do not like what it did, not only are we not prepared to accept it, but we want the committee to go back and bite the dust. We want the committee to change its report, even though the evidence is that it was a unanimous report when the committee brought it in.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
For these reasons, I hope that the government will not press this amendment. It would be a magnanimous gesture which would show deference to the way in which parliament should work if the amendment were withdrawn. But if the government cannot do that, then let the motion go over into government
Transport and Communications orders and let it die there at the end of the session. There is another motion there to adopt another report, and the same thing would happen to it. If this amendment is carried and the motion as amended is carried, not only will we have had a nasty day in parliament today-and there is no denying that this is what we have had-but we will have something on the record which will not grace the reputation of parliament.
There is no point in multiplying words. I confess I was shocked at what happened today. I said earlier that I had thought I would have the day off so far as speaking was concerned. I know that for anybody to get up and say he did not intend to take part in a debate is usually laughed at, but that was my intention. There were enough people to take part in the debate, especially with respect to the substance of the matter. But I was really shocked over what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) did when his original amendment was ruled out of order because he called paragraph 5 paragraph 4. All that was necessary then was to designate that paragraph properly, but he had the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand) change other words in the amendment so that instead of the government asking the house to give the committee power to change its recommendation if it so desired, the amendment was worded so that the committee must make that change and it was given no other choice.
Notwithstanding the interjection of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. All-mand), may I say that if his motion passes, the only motion which the committee and the chairman-whether it is the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard) or someone else-will be able to accept will be a motion for the deletion of the offending paragraph in the report. As my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) asks, what will happen if by any chance hon. members do not vote for that motion? Will they be in contempt of parliament? Will we have a scene? Will hon. members be brought to the bar of the house, or perhaps committed to the tower because they have not done what parliament has called upon them to do? Let us just contemplate the utterly ridiculous situation in which this parliament is being put by this amendment, and particularly by the rewording effected by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. I would not have liked the original motion as moved by the President of the Privy Council, but in retrospect it
April 1. 1969

Transport and Communications was so much better than this1 one that I wish the words I am now talking about had stayed the way they were.
I have said enough, but I have a subamendment which I would like to move. Hon. members may feel that this subamendment will only complicate matters, but I feel that if we are going to be asked to make this decision, we should be logical. We should carry through and state clearly what follows from the amendment that is now before us in the name of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. So, to make it clear what the house is being asked to do, I move seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the amendment be amended by adding at the end thereof the following words:
"and that the members of the said standing committee be discharged, since the passing of this motion, as amended, constitutes a vote of nonconfidence in the said members".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Chair has some reservations about the amendment and wishes some time to consider it.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, without any doubt whatsoever this has become one of the most overblown issues of this session. It is interesting to observe the actions of some hon. members in the opposition. Very often they contest committee reports, but they happen to agree with this one so they want to blow it up into a vast political issue. Let us consider some of the statements that have been made in this debate. It has been suggested that a loyal group of members of parliament from all parties in this house toured the maritimes and came back earnestly determined to make a report which would be made available to the House of Commons. What are the facts? Many of the key members of that committee were not even present at the committee meeting because they had other responsibilities in the house.


An hon. Member:: Some excuse.


Raymond J. Perrault: What were their names?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) just made a
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
statement that is not in accordance with the facts, and I would ask him to withdraw it.


Raymond J. Perrault: Sit down and listen, then perhaps you will get some information that is really factual.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I challenge the hon. member.


Raymond J. Perrault: We have had so much maudlin chit-chat-


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


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is the tradition of this house for hon. members to speak in accordance with the facts. I charge that the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour just now made a statement that is not true, and I ask him to either back up that statement or categorically withdraw it.


Raymond J. Perrault: If the hon. member will remain in his place instead of engaging in these antics-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour has the floor.


Raymond J. Perrault: What about the meeting of March 17? The following are the Liberal members who were absent from the meeting: the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) and the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault), replaced by: the hon. member for York West (Mr. Givens), the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Les-sard). The members of the Conservative party who were absent were the following: the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Now-lan), replaced by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle). Also the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Godin) was absent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador on a point of order.


Mr. Peddle:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour suggested that a number of key members were absent at the time the decision was taken. I should like to ask of you, Mr. April 1. 1969	COMMONS
Speaker, what constitutes a key member of a committee. In my opinion all members are equal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I ask the hon. member who has the floor to restrict his remarks to the amendment before the house.


Raymond J. Perrault: I intend to restrict my
remarks to the facts, and that may be a notable contribution to the debate today. But the suggestion that somehow democracy has been subverted because the committee did not bring in a report which is to the liking of some members of the opposition is pure, unadulterated hogwash, and the agony of these opposition members hopping up and objecting on small and insignificant technical points does not strengthen their case at all.
I am simply saying that of the group which toured the maritimes and saw the conditions firsthand-and I was a member of that group-I would not have voted in favour of this particular report.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why were you not at the meeting?


Raymond J. Perrault: At least ten members were absent, all of them important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order,
please. I ask for the co-operation of members of the house. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour now has the floor.


Raymond J. Perrault: The way some members descend to vilification indicates the quality of the argument which they have advanced today.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The members of the committee which toured the maritimes showed a dedicated interest in the problems of the maritimes, and that goes for all members of all parties. We have a good group, there. I am suggesting that the committee report of March 17 was not representative of the group of people who investigated those conditions.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order. No hon. member is entitled to challenge the validity of a properly made recommendation and report which has been brought into the house by a committee merely because all the committee members were not present at the time it was made. We are now debating the report of the committee, together with an amendment and a subamendment which have
DEBATES	7405
Transport and Communications been made in this connection. No hon. member is entitled to go behind the report and say it was not a good report because it was not drawn up when all the committee members were present. If this argument were to be accepted there is scarcely a committee report brought into the house which would not be subject to criticism on these grounds and the suggestion that it should, therefore, not be approved. I do not think the hon. member can put forward that line of argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I will again ask the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the amendment and not to discuss the committee meetings.


Raymond J. Perrault: With all due respect to the learned member of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I do not think this house needs a lecture on procedure.


Some hon. Members:: You do.


Raymond J. Perrault: I have had something to do with legislative proceedings and I am suggesting that it comes to a situation in which a committee reports back to this house, and the Official Opposition itself freely acknowledges that since there is a government majority the government's majority is acceptable to them, despite any minority objections they may hold. In this case the government states there is a technical and perhaps a philosophical flaw in the report as received. It is entirely in order for the house' to refer a section of this report back to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Raymond J. Perrault: There is nothing in the
amendment before us to justify the kind of action contemplated in the subamendment moved by the representative of the New Democratic party. This paragraph could be deleted. Another paragraph could be brought back on the same subject in another form. The government, which commands a majority in this house, simply says it is not in order to accept the report in this particular form. If members of the opposition wish to challenge this, they have a right to do so in the course of subsequent committee meetings and a democratic vote will be taken. It should be repeated that members on the government side of the house and in this rump in the comer, happen to hold a majority in this parliament and they are not going to be run by a minority group in this house. Members who are so agitated about the procedure contemplated here should seek to have themselves
April 1. 1969

Transport and Communications placed on the committee by their respective party whips so that they can make their views known when the committee meets.
Some of those who are so vocal today should have shown more interest in joining the tour when we went to the maritimes. They all had the right to show up but many were notable by their absence.


Some hon. Member:: Shame.


Raymond J. Perrault: In summary, Mr. Speaker, there were six or seven members absent from the vital committee meeting on March 17, members who were on the maritime tour. A number of them would not have supported this report, I am sure. There are other members of Parliament on the government side who would not have supported the report in the form in which it was sent to the house. It is in order to refer this back to the committee. Perhaps a vastly improved report can now be prepared, possibly on the basis of suggestions offered by representatives of minority groups, which would be accepted by the committee if the arguments used were persuasive enough.
The assertion that this is establishing a dangerous precedent and that democracy is being frustrated is a specious one, and everybody knows it.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in connection with something which the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) has said and which I maintain is not in accordance with the facts. He stated that key members of the committee were absent. I maintain that the following government members of the committee were present the night the committee drafted its report: the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney), the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the hon. member for LaSalle (Mr. Lessard), the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Pringle), the hon. member for Madiawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelanee) and the hon. member for Bouras-sa (Mr. Trudel). Those are eight of the 11 Liberal members entitled to sit on the committee, and those eight members took part in the tour of the Atlantic provinces and voted unanimously for the report.


Raymond J. Perrault: I shall not engage in a battle of the lists. I -shall allow the Clerk's office to

resolve this particular matter. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) was not there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order.
The hon. member has finished his speech.


Mr. Mahoney:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I was not there.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In order to get the debate back on the rails after the speech to which we have just listened, it might be as well to summarize the motion and the amendment before us.
We are now considering a motion as set out on the order paper on page three:
That the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Wednesday, March 19, 1969, be concurred in.
The following amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand):
That the said report be not now concurred in but that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with instruction that they delete from the report the paragraph thereof which reads as follows:
Your Committee recommends that the order of the Canadian Transport Commission, authorizing the Canadian National Railways to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland on April 5, 1969, be left in abeyance, until your Committee tables its complete report in respect to this question.
We have heard this evening from the Liberal member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault). One thing I can say at the outset is this: He is not known for his modesty. Modesty is not one of his virtues. I have noticed- and I -am not making anything of this-that his seat has often been vacant. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) once asked: "Who the hell is the member?" No doubt parliament made certain decisions on occasions when he happened to be absent on government business, or constituency business or any other kind of business. Is he -asking us to accept that we should therefore review those decisions because he or some other members were absent?


An hon. Member:: He is a key member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What kind of nonsense is that?
I wish to speak on this particular amendment and on the amendment to the amendment because I am one of those who stood in the house when rule changes were being debated and who did not agree to the type of
April 1, 1969
rules which changed the committee structure. I agree with speakers on this side who have said that committees are the creatures of the house and of parliament. But I do not go along with the idea that they should become the creatures of the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The Prime Minister said: We are the masters of the house. Now he and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) are saying in effect: We are the masters not only of the house but of the committee structure, too. I do not agree with some of my hon. friends in my own party or with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in this regard. Surely, these boys will behave. The whole thing boils down to this. Human nature being what it is, and politicians being subject to a certain kind of human behaviour, the only way in which to keep the government in its place and avoid complete control by the executive is to establish some rules.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
New members of the Liberal party have not seen parliament function long enough to realize when the rules were changed they allowed human behaviour to operate in the way it usually does. This government wants to be a dictator. Without rules there is no way to control the cabinet. We must refer this procedure back to the rules committee for changes so that the committee structure can be protected and we will be in a position to debate issues of this nature. This is a wrong against Newfoundland; it is wrong in fact and in law, and wrong as far as parliament is concerned. These rules must be changed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is evidence that rules of this kind will not operate with this kind of government or any other kind of government. Human nature being what it is, this government will take every advantage. It is power hungry. This was demonstrated when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and another minister taped information prior to giving it in the House of Commons. Then, they stood in their arrogant way with papers written by their advisers in their hanky-panky fashion.
We know very well, Your Honour, that they are guilty of a breach of the oath they took as pi ivy councillors. I say this government is a dictatorial government. The former
Transport and Communications Prime Minister, when debating a tax matter, changed the rules and these two ministers are doing it now. This makes it in order to mention these facts. The Prime Minister in 1963 described a Liberal as "say anything, think anything, do anything; forget about your ethics, but put us into power." That is the philosophy of the Liberal government.


An hon. Member:: You are right.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad you agree with me; I know I am right. We must change the rules to bring the estimates or a part of the estimates, back to the House of Commons. This is the only power this house has over the government, to control the purse strings of this nation. When this is done, parliament will function with efficiency and freedom will be gained in this institution.
When I spoke previously about rule changes, Mr. Speaker, I predicted what would happen in the committees. It has happened now. Members of the New Democratic party and others in my party predicted certain things would happen under the rule changes. We were tolerant. We said our party stood for reform.
When we sat on the opposite side of the house with a minority government, Pickers-gill, Chevrier and Pearson filibustered supplementary estimates on labour for 18 days. They were the masters of filibuster. Certainly, changes were needed, but when the whole of the estimates were taken out of the House of Commons, control of the pursestrings was taken away from parliament. The executive then became all-powerful. The proof of this is what is going on today in connection with this amendment. The executive say there was a committee.
When we examine the committee structure we see there is always a Liberal chairman and we are blessed if we get a fair one. There is always a Liberal majority and we are blessed if that majority exercises the discretion and fairness which is necessary. The rules have been changed in the committees. Members are puppets of the executive; they all want to be in the cabinet or parliamentary secretaries. That is why the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace moved this amendment. He wants to be close to the executive. He wants a laying on of hands. This is the human behaviour to which I have referred.
Members opposite are talking, yelling and heckling me because they realize the rules of the house must be changed. Committees must be creatures of parliament and not creatures

April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications of the executive. Then, this hanky-panky [DOT] nonsense of changing reports by the executive and the government will be stopped. This is the second time this has happened.
I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications before becoming a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Grant Deachman: Why didn't you vote
against it?
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. Again I ask the co-operation of hon. members to allow the hon. member for Calgary North to finish his remarks.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to answer the member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). When I was a member of the Committee on Transport and Communications, I attended. The only reason I am not on the committee now is I am on the committee of Justice and Legal Affairs. That can be confirmed by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and other members on the committee.
When I was a member of that committee, the chairman was ill one morning. We did not know he was ill because we are not mind readers. Members of the government stated they were going to change the chairman. Fancy throwing out a member when he is sick! Do you know who threw him out? The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney). He wanted to be the chairman of that committee. That is the kind of hanky-panky that was going on. We said, here is a French-Canadian chairman, a member of the Liberal party doing a fair job; he deserves to keep that chairmanship.


Raymond J. Perrault: Sit down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My friend says to sit down. Let me just digress on a point of order-
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Bechard): Order. The hon. member is delivering his speech on the amendment. There is no point of order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour should not be permitted to make speeches from that part of his posterior that I will not mention because of the niceties of parliament. According to the rules, he must rise in his place. The hon. member has no right, even though he comes from the rustics of the B.C. legislature, to interrupt me without taking his proper seat in the house.

(9:30 p.m.)


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I do not think we are going to get very far with all these points of order. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order. Under the rules of this house the hon. member can only speak from, his seat. I say with great respect that the hon. member for Bur-naby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) is not now in his seat.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Calgary North.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Even if hon. gentlemen opposite do not agree with me, I suggest that they sit in silence and listen. In that way we might get on with the job a little quicker. Now, to continue with the narrative.
At the next committee meeting the Liberals rushed on to appoint a new chairman. We in our party never supported that kind of procedure. At that time there was a motion moved, similar to the one with respect to transportation in Newfoundland. Again, it was passed. Twice that motion was passed by the same committee, and twice the executive decided to change the motion. There was a quorum at the committee meeting. As I say, the committee has twice passed that motion. It has been twice before the House of Commons, and twice the executive has tried to run the House of Commons. That is why I say, under the new rules and with this kind of political behavior, it is impossible to operate these committees.
The only way to get fair committees is to have the committees elect their own chairmen, irrespective of political party affiliation. When you get that, you will have true democracy but as1 long as a committee is set up as a creature of the Liberal government you will not have any fairness so far as the committee work is concerned. That is why the government is now moving to delete from the committee report the question of transportation in Newfoundland.
The amendment to the amendment puts the argument in the proper perspective, because if this motion is passed the executive can change anything having to do with a committee. The hon. member for Bumaby-Seymour
April 1, 1969
argued that all members did not attend the committee meeting, and said that parliament can change any of these things no matter what committees do. He also said, "We have a majority." What he really said, was, "As long as the executive wants something, then the members of the Liberal party, who are in a majority, will ram it through."


Raymond J. Perrault: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has' been engaging in utter distortion of the intent and substance of my remarks. I think hon. members would like to have him speak to the other amendment before the house instead of engaging in this highly partisan dissertation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no question of privilege.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In reply to the hon. member I could only say, "Woh wad some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us."


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, I had some doubt about whether I was going to be recognized in time. Now that I have the floor, and assuming the house closes at ten o'clock tonight, I can assure you that I will have the last word on this matter tonight. I am sorry that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is not present. I do not know where he is and I do not care where he is, but I do want to say that I have been thinking a lot about him lately. The more I think about him, the less I think of him. I am beginning to think he is one hon. member who Stands for anything he thinks people will fall for.
I am getting a little confused, Mr. Speaker. The initial motion was that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the house on March 19, be concurred in. Now it has been amended, and the amendments have been amended, and the amendments to the amendments have been amended so often that I am not sure what I am talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Mr. Speaker, since I have been a member of this house may I say that I have never seen any hon. member opposite admit that he did not know what he was talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Transport and Communications


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The house leader has attempted to keep this report from being adapted on the grounds that the transport committee had no right to make this recommendation to the house. That was his first contention and Mr. Speaker found his argument spurious, or at least invalid, and ruled accordingly. Maybe "spurious" is too strong a word, but the Speaker did rule against the President of the Privy Council.
Now, we have an amendment that the report of the committee be not concurred in and that the committee be instructed to go back like good little boys and do as they have been instructed. The President of the Privy Council comes in swinging, with his pugnacious look, with his shoulders up and his guard up, and he says that one of his little committees in his innocuous, watered-down committee system has dared to recommend something to the government.
The underlying reasoning of hon. gentlemen opposite seems to be, "look, after all this government has a majority. As we have a majority, how dare you recommend something to offend that majority." But, Mr. Speaker, the government also has something like a two to one majority on the committees of this house.
Some time ago, one hon. member opposite sent a circular to his constituents telling them that he had been instructed on exactly how to behave on committees. I doubt very much if an hon. member would print thousands of copies of such a circular and say something like that unless there was some justification for it. In any event, I believe it. I have a copy of the circular.


James Aloysius McGrath: Identify the hon. member.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I don't know his constituency.


Some hon. Members:: The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto).


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The hon. member for York East.
When I and other new members first came to this house we were put at ease by the President of the Privy Council when we asked questions as to how we would get our views across. He used words to this effect, "Have no fear. Go into the committees and you will have every opportunity to put your views across. Don't worry about it. This is a new streamlined system; the new society, the just society. We are on the ball. You fellows need have no worry."

April 1, 1969

Transport and Communications
But, Mr. Speaker, where are the opportunities when you see the list of committees posted in the elevator and find that four prominent committees are holding sessions at 9.30 on the same morning?


Raymond J. Perrault: What are you talking about?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I am trying to refer to the transport committee specifically, but I wish to make a general comment on how I feel about all the committees. I feel they dilute the parliament process. They are a deliberate fragmentation of parliament so that not only will the opposition be fragmented and key members of the opposition have to be in four or five different places at one time, but also so that the gentlemen of the press will be fragmented and will have to be in four or five places at one time. By so doing, the government can really promote the just society. But we know what they accomplish by that. Every piece of legislation, no matter how ridiculous, is pushed through with a very minimum of opposition. We know what the reasoning behind it is. We are told that this is a democracy.


Raymond J. Perrault: Let us not get political.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not think democracy is necessarily a political word. We are told this is a democracy; I say it is a sugar-coated dictatorship, with a very thin coating of sugar. I have attended meetings of the transport committee when I was and when I was not a member of the committee. As the hon. member for St. John's East mentioned I tried to ask questions, but it was like trying to catch the proverbial greased pig; you just could not get anywhere. I remember asking questions in respect of the figures the Canadian National Railways used to support their application to abandon the rail passenger service in Newfoundland. I asked Mr. Pickers-gill, the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, to please explain them to me. He said it would be a grave impropriety for him to comment on something produced by, I believe he said, a quasi-judicial body, whatever that means. What could I say! I waited until we had the executives of the C.N.R. before the committee. I asked them the same question. They said, "Far be it from us to comment on what takes place in a quasi-judicial body".
So, I began to wonder to whom we could appeal in order to ask these questions. The house leader, in the last day or two in this

house, said that it was not proper for the committee, even though it is a creature of this parliament, to question the ruling of a quasi-judicial commission. How in the name of heaven are we to go about questioning the ruling of a quasi-judicial commission!


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I don't know; but whatever it is, how does one go about questioning it? Mr. Speaker, there are more lawyers in this house than one could shake a stick at. I remember counting them one time. I think I found there were six dozen, 72 lawyers. I might have a better grasp to how to figure out some of the legal situations if I were one of the six dozen, but unfortunately or fortunately, whichever way one looks at it, I am not. I think, however, that there must be some allowance made for the non-legal members who are here.
I might give an example. Many months ago I asked in this house for certain figures from the C.N.R. The Minister of Transport said, "Nothing doing, not permitted". In any event, by somewhat devious means I obtained the figures. I questioned Mr. Pickersgill, the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, about them and Mr. Pickersgill said, "Nothing doing; we cannot discuss that." I waited and then confronted the top executives of the C.N.R. with them and they said "Nothing doing; we can't talk about those things." So my question is, to whom can we go to direct questions and get answers. Since that time, we have come here and the President of the Privy Council says the samething. In effect he says, "Nothing doing". I am some that in the laws of this country there must be some spirit of fairness, as there is in all laws. Whether one asks the questions in a legal form or not, there must be a spirit of fairness to our laws. If there is not, then to use the words of the former prime minister, just what kind of a government is this?
This is the very first day of Newfoundland's twenty-first year as a so-called partner in confederation. I do not think I should make any reference to the fact that it is commonly known as the "feast of all fools". I should like to comment on the remarks made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault). He mentioned that when this particular decision was made certain key members of the committee were absent. At that time I was not a member of the transport committee, but since the matters being considered so vitally affected my province and my constituency I went to St. John's when
April 1, 1969
the committee was sitting in St. John's. In order to allay any fears on the part of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour I might mention that I was just playing around. I went at my own1 expense. This is more than any member of the committee was doing at that time. I went there because the matters being considered were of great interest to my province-and the people of my constituency. I will go so far as to say that I observed the work of the transport committee while the members of that committee were in St John's. I watched them work as the hon. member of St. John's East said from morning until night.
I watched the members of the committee as they paid very serious attention to the problems that were at hand. I think it was around that time I decided I would very much like to be a member of the Transport Committee, a committee which worked and which really took its obligations seriously. Since that time I did become a member of that committee. We hear talk about appeals, the legal meaning of appeals and what it means to make a legal appeal to the Governor in Council and so on. I should like to point out, however, that regardless of the legal aspect of this thing, since this parliament opened in September past at least six members from the province of Newfoundland have been standing in their places time after time after time making appeals. After all, those six members represent six out of the seven ridings in Newfoundland. That is 86 per cent. I do not know whether it is 86 per cent of the people, but it is 86 per cent of the ridings in any event. Six M.P.'s have been standing here appealing to this government to do something about the decision that this so-called quasi-judicial body took with regard to railway passenger service in Newfoundland. But all that we have received, so far as I can see, has been derision. This is not the type of reception one would expect for Canada's newest province.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This afternoon the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) said that in his opinion this committee was sneaking in a recommendation. I made careful note of the term that he used. I think this is a shameful thing for a member on the government side to say and it is a manifestation of the lack of confidence members on that side have in the committee system. It is a reflection not only on the chairman of the committee but also on his colleagues who served on the committee.
Transport and Communications
This afternoon this hon. member, who I understand is learned in the law-God forgive-stood up and pontificated. He knew what were the problems of transportation in Newfoundland because he had been to St. John's. Glory be to God, he had been to St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland! There, he had taken a 30 mile trip on the train and a return trip on the bus. Then, he throws out his chest and says: "Hon. members, I know the score in Newfoundland; I am an expert on transportation problems there". I am sorry the hon. member is not here at the moment, but in view of his performance this afternoon I do not blame him for not being here.
I said I was not going to get stirred up about this matter and I am not. As I see the whole situation, the big, heavy, horny, hoary, hands of the government clamp down on anyone that dares to oppose. Sometimes I feel Jack Pickersgill is not too far removed from this chamber.
We talk of the transport commission as being a quasi-judicial arm of this government. I do not like personal reflections, Mr. Speaker, and I hope this is not construed as such. Neither do I like to reflect upon any judicial body, if the transport commission is such. But my experience has been that when this commission did consider the application of Canadian National Railways to abandon its rail passenger service in Newfoundland, it did not act as a quasi-judicial body but as a grandiose group of glorified rubber stamps. They did not know the first thing about the matter on which they were deciding. That has pretty well been proven-


Raymond J. Perrault: Why did you not file a formal objection then?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: One was.


Raymond J. Perrault: Who by?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: One was, Mr. Speaker. I hope this is related to the motion, but in support of the C.N.R.'s application to abandon rail passenger service in Newfoundland a figure was produced that indicated a deficit in 1966 of $918,000. I should like to question that figure and also ascertain in what way this quasijudicial body understood the figure. The amount of $918,000 averages out to $1.85 for every person in Newfoundland, and if that is what is required to run a provincial transportation system then this is the "big deal" to which everyone is objecting.
With all these fine sounding legal expressions, such as "quasi-judicial" and so on, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
April 1. 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Speaker, I could go on ad infinitum, but I think it is about time I took my seat.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a question of privilege. During the course of my interruption of the speech of the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Per-rault) I quite erroneously stated that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) and the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) were present during the drafting of the report of the committee. I now find they were not present and I apologize to the two hon. members for having said that they were. However, having said that, I say there were still six of the 11 regular liberal members of the committee present.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government house leader or his deputy what will be the business of this house for tomorrow so we will all be advised.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The three agricultural bills that we were supposed to have dealt with today, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, during the oral question period, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) whether Air Canada had advised him of its intention to hire 150 part-time employees at its airports in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, Air Canada is thinking of hiring soon for part-time employment 50 persons at Montreal, 60 at Toronto and 40 at Vancouver. I am somewhat puzzled by the fact that this Crown corporation should be considering such a thing.
Having looked into the financial report for the year ending December 31, 1968, which was prepared by experienced auditors and submitted to parliament, I am asking myself

the following question: How can such an important company contemplate adopting a policy now followed by French fries and ice cream vendors?
How can a company whose services are in great demand, which had to increase substantially its flights, which has paid for the use of federal airports approximately $12,000,000 in 1968, namely an increase of 24 per cent compared to 1967, and whose operation revenue for the same period amounted to $387,628,000, an increase of 12 per cent over 1967, think of hiring part-time employees?
Mr. Speaker, I have always attached the utmost importance to the services of Air Canada, because it insists on a well-trained personnel who must not make any mistake. Since the training of a good Air Canada representative requires a three-year course of instruction, at the rate of eight hours a day, can the company afford giving questionable service by hiring representatives who would be qualified in five or six years? Is it entitled to expose the public to all the disadvantages resulting from the presence of an employee who is not interested in his work and will probably look for a permanent position elsewhere?
As in all small businesses where part-time employees are found, at Air Canada the responsibilities are always left to permanent employees. Is Air Canada considering the possibility of creating within its organization, some easy jobs for part-time employees?
Since surveys made by serious people have proven that part-time labor is more expensive, why put 150 such employees on the payroll? Would it not be more economical to hire 75 full-time employees? Has the company considered the psychological problems that would arise from the integration of part-time workers to the permanent staff? Has it consulted its 16,600 employees in order to get their views on the subject?
When Air Canada signed collective agreements with the unions negotiating in the name of different categories of employees, did it make this plan known?
Since part-time employees cannot become members of unions, does it foresee possible strikes and does it rely on the part-time workers to break them? Or does it actually depend on those future employees to break the B.O.A.C. strike?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, since at the Montreal Airport alone the number of flights is approximately
April 1, 1969	COMMONS
200 per day, it is obvious that there are no idle periods and that, in that Corporation, there is room only for permanent personnel.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport to remind that Crown Corporation that the benefits which it enjoys are commensurate with the responsibilities it has to discharge.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall give this reply on behalf of the Minister of Transport who pointed out to me that Air Canada informed him of its intention to hire extra salesmen during the busiest periods in the summer. Those employees will be assigned to airport and downtown offices. They will be allotted as follows: 37 in Montreal, 5 to 10 in Toronto and 12 in Vancouver. That was the reply I got, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX-REQUEST FOR EXEMPTION OF OLD AGE PENSIONERS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, during the oral question period this afternoon I raised a question which I have asked a number of times, having to do with an unfortunate anomaly that has developed in our income tax structure. I raise the question again tonight in1 the hope that by continued persuasion we can ensure that action will be taken on this matter at an early date. I am referring to the fact that with the income tax exemption levels still where they were in 1949, and with the amounts paid as old age pension having gone up, we have reached the situation where older people, particularly those between the ages of 65 and 70, who receive the old age pension and the guaranteed income supplement but have nothing else on which to live, have to pay income tax on a portion of that meagre income.
I repeat what I have said before, that I am sure this was never intended. It is one of those anomalies that develops because legislation is changed here and there and in other places; but I feel very strongly that it should not be allowed to continue.
I noticed this afternoon when I asked my question that there seemed to be pretty general support in all quarters of the house for the implied suggestion that people who have nothing else but their old age pension and their guaranteed income supplement should not have to pay any income tax at all. One of
DEBATES	7413
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the occasions when I raised this was on Friday, February 21, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at page 5797 when I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) if he would correct this situation in this session. His reply was:
Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider the very serious representations of my hon. friend.
A few days later, in fact it was on March 5, 1969, as recorded in Hansard at pages 6221 and 6222, we had a discussion of this matter on the late late show and the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray) very graciously replied that there was nothing he could add to what the Minister of Finance had said, namely that he would be glad to consider the serious representations which I had made.
I raised the matter again on Monday, March 17, in a motion that we had set down for an allotted day. It was a motion that had to do generally with old age pensions, the position of veterans on the war veterans allowance, and so on. The motion included a request that certain income tax anomalies be straightened out. One particular anomaly I had in mind, and I so stated, was the unfairness of pensioners who have nothing else but their pension income having to pay tax on it. During the course of that day's debate, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) participated, and at one point he referred to part of my motion. His reference is recorded at page 6703 of Hansard. He made the categorical statement that revisions of our tax laws were receiving a great deal of attention and that one of the purposes of these revisions was to deal with this kind of anomaly. I was pleased to get that statement and -responded by saying to the minister that I would hold him to what he had said.
That same day I took the liberty of interrupting the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dub6) when he was speaking and I asked him whether he would support the Minister of National Health and Welfare in trying to persuade the Minister of Finance to correct some of these income tax anomalies. I made reference in particular to war veterans who are called upon to transfer from the war veterans allowance to the guaranteed income supplement, who then find that it is taxable and that they have to pay taxes which they did not previously have to pay. The Minister of Veterans Affairs replied that my assumption was correct.
I am developing a fairly impressive roster. I have the Minister of Finance agreeing to
April 1, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion give consideration to my representations. I have the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance assuring me that this consideration will be given by his minister. I have the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Veterans Affairs both adding their support to this proposition.
I say to the parliamentary secretary before he answers me tonight that I know I cannot expect a pre-budget announcement in the course of a late show, but I do emphasize as strongly as I can that this is one of those small but gnawing issues that should not wait over until a complete review or for a white paper, or until next year's budget. The minister has yet to bring in at this session his bill to amend the Income Tax Act. In it will be something that we do not like, that is the 2 per cent social development tax. He could sweeten the bill a bit if he could include in it at least a temporary provision so that old age pensioners who have nothing else but their old age pension are not required to pay income tax.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
This could be done by means of a tax credit. It could be done by making the supplement not subject to taxation. It could be done by restoring the $500 exemption to those between 65 and 70, or in some other way. It can be done if the government has the will to do it, and I think I am correct in saying that the government will be responding to the wishes of members in all parts of the house if it takes action along these lines this spring. I hope the parliamentary secretary can assure me tonight that favourable consideration will be given to these representations.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The point raised by the hon. member this evening has been raised by other hon. members on all sides of the house in the past. I myself raised this question in the house on a previous occasion, prior to the remarks made by the hon. member this evening, so he is not bringing this matter to the attention of the house and of the government for the first time.
This is the type of case which is now under review in connection with the government's work of preparing a white paper in which it will set forth its program of tax reform. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) has stated that it is his intention to present this document to the house this coming June. However, I shall be pleased to bring the hon. member's representations to the attention of the

minister. I am sure he will add them to the others he has already received on this important matter from other members of this house and will give them, along with these other representations, every appropriate consideration.



PUBLIC BUILDINGS-BATH-MILLHAVEN FEDERAL PRISON COMPLEX

Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Fronienac-Lennox and Addington):: I rise this evening, Mr. Speaker, to pursue a question I asked on March 19 regarding certain n.s.f. cheques written for services in my area by the now bankrupt subcontractor on the Bath-Millhav-en federal prison complex, D. Leblanc Inc. of Chomedey, Laval, Quebec. I brought up this matter on February 25 when I interceded on behalf of those who had received n.s.f. cheques for labour on this project.
I am not here tonight to embarass the government. The government is certainly embarrassed enough already, due to the fact that this subcontractor was not bonded. I thank the minister for his response to my plea of February 25 when he assured me and the labouring men of my riding who have been so rudely treated that $30,000 would be withheld from progress payments to Argo, the prime contractor, and applied toward payment of n.s.f. cheques submitted to Argo for labour.
However, there is another side to this serious question and it is this1 aspect which I am raising tonight. Leblanc, in its capacity as a contractor on this job, arranged for several of its key personnel to obtain lodging, room and board in the vicinity of the prison site. In one case, these services were provided by the Millhaven Inn, a small hostel operated by L. G. Savage of Bath, Ontario. Leblanc agreed to pay for lodging for his men at this establishment, and I have here photostat copies of these n.s.f. cheques given to Mr. Savage for his services. I also have a photostat copy of the total owing to Mr. Savage by Leblanc, namely, $1,099.50.
These cheques were, of course, for services, not directly for labour. Mr. Savage told me in a letter of March 10 that he had contacted the Argo claims representative, a Mr. Caron in Montreal who was handling the Argo-Leblanc affairs and Mr. Caron stated that as far as Argo was concerned Mr. Savage and any other local people holding Leblanc n.s.f. cheques for services had no hope of getting their money because they-meaning Argo, the
April 1, 1969

surviving prime contractor-were interested only ini labour, that is, wages.
It is a fine situation, Mr. Speaker, when an unbonded contractor, an unknown in our province, can get a contract from the federal government, come in from Quebec, or any other province, obtain thousands of dollars worth of labour and services, pay for them, supposedly, with worthless cheques and then disappear into his native province while his debts and obligations go unsatisfied. This cannot be allowed, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were here tonight I would say to him that this is a long way from the just society he advocates. In fact, I would make a wager with the Prime Minister or any of his members that no contractor from Ontario would be able to get a federal job in Quebec. There would be some technical point or option whereby this government and the provincial authorities in Quebec would make sure a federal government contract in the province of Quebec would be awarded to a Quebec contractor. I am not saying that is not a good idea, for Quebec, Mr. Speaker. For example, just last week when awarding defence contracts for the new green uniforms for the unified forces Quebec received the lion's share of these contracts.
I now cite the case of Napanee Industries who last year lost a $3 million equipment contract for the C.N.R. The successful bidders were Quebec firms which were provincially subsidized for their success in getting federal contracts. This, of course, was not a building contract. It was a manufacturing contract for flatcars and railway equipment. This type of business hurt us badly in Napanee because it forced Napanee Industries to lay off many men at the beginning of the winter. It is time that Canadians, region to region and province to province stopped this deception, intrigue and discrimination and became forthright and honest with each other.
The government three weeks ago assumed basic responsibility for all n.s.f. cheques issued by D. Leblanc Inc. at the Bath Millhaven project to the extent of $30,000. They must also assume this responsibility to Mr. Savage for the n.s.f. cheques that Mr. Savage has accepted for services.
I have a copy of Mr. Savage's letter from which I quote:
As arranged with D. Leblanc, C. Leblanc and C. Pomerleau, owners of the company, all accounts to the Millhaven Inn would be paid by the company and they in turn would deduct, room, board and rent from the employees, thus avoiding any loss to us in the event of layoffs or strikes.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
This arrangement worked well from November 12, 1968 to January 24, 1969.
I also understand that employees are allowed in the region of $7 per day living allowance when they are away from home and this pays for room and board and becomes part of income for tax purposes. Therefore I submit that wages earned includes living allowance, travel allowance, etc., and that Leblanc n.s.f. cheques for these services should be recognized for restitution the same as labour.
There is plenty of labour connected with providing room and board to labouring men. To continue Mr. Savage's letter:
An interesting point to me is why from the time I deposited my cheques on the 27th of January did it take 18 days from deposit date for them to return to me n.s.f.
I took the matter up with my bank manager and he feels that the La Banque Provinciale du Canada in Montreal held them, pending payment by Argo to D. Leblanc, and they, in turn retrieved what D. Leblanc owed them and then sent my cheques and many others back to Ontario n.s.f.
I heard that $37,000 was credited to their account a few days before bankruptcy.
I have another letter here from Mr. Reginald Harkness of Bath, Ont. who worked for them. He asks the following question:
1 How one can collect pay and vacation pay owing.
2.	How can a company such as Leblanc remove union dues from employees pay and yet these were never received by union.
3.	How can a company being from Quebec be immune to paying hospitalization.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I believe it is an Ontario law that requires them to pay hospitalization if they have so many employees on the payroll-


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


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to inform the house that certain facts mentioned by the hon. member for Frontenae-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) are not relevant to the question that was to be debated tonight.
I wish to tell the hon. member that when contracts are awarded by the government, by the Department of Public Works as well as by other departments, they are awarded to the lowest bidder, whether he be a resident of Quebec, Ontario or any other province.
April 1, 1969
7416	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [English]
To come back to the case that interests us tonight, Mr. Speaker, I have previously advised the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack) that the government has taken action to protect the payment of wages to personnel who worked on the project he refers to, namely, the maximum security institution at Millhaven, Ontario. The department will also investigate claims for payment for materials used in the construction of this project.
Claims arising from supplementary arrangements made by the subcontractor off the job are normally dealt with under the trustee in

bankruptcy, if such is declared. The individual should file his claim for consideration by the department, but a guarantee of payment cannot now be given.
The government recognizes the problem of suppliers of services to subcontractors, and the Treasury Board committees on contract procedures has considered double bonding and other means beyond the provisions of our recent contracts. The protection now offered is more than applies with other contracting agencies. However, whether more responsibility should be accepted has not yet been determined by the government.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, April 2, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of ithe Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.