1969-01-20

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table in French and English copies of the order in council regarding the application of sanctions to Rhodesia.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to report briefly to the House of Commons on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference which concluded in London last week.


An hon. Member:: Were you there?


Mr. Trudeau:: Where the hell were you?


An hon. Member:: We weren't invited.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And you never will be, I may tell you that.
This was the sixteenth of these meetings since world war II. The 28 members of the Commonwealth represented at the conference made it the largest by far of any of the Commonwealth meetings held to date. Twenty-four of the 28 states were represented by heads of government-either prime ministers or presidents-and this, according to the calculation of the chairman, was one of the biggest meetings of heads of government anywhere since the 1945 San Francisco conference.
This is perhaps the greatest strength of the Commonwealth, this opportunity on a regular basis for men of good will to sit down together and discuss one with another the problems which affect them and the 850 million people whom they represent. All the other advantages of the Commonwealth relationship-the
exchanges of people, the trading patterns, the economic assistance and co-operation schemes, the informality of diplomatic representation- these all assume their tone from the free and frank dialogue which takes place at the prime ministerial meetings.
It is difficult for me as a newcomer to these meetings to compare this latest conference with those that have preceded it in recent years. My impression is that this meeting was not only successful as Commonwealth meetings go, but significantly so. Indeed this conference may have marked some kind of watershed for the Commonwealth. For one thing the Commonwealth is now close to its maximum size, and future meetings will not note the presence of many new members. For another, the scope of the secretariat seems now to have been defined and its services identified. But most important, and here I rely not simply on my own observations but on the comments of several veteran heads of government, the Commonwealth meeting appears to have attained a new plateau of maturity. Those who anticipated dramatic events at this meeting were incorrect; those who forecast an emotional confrontation over racial issues have been proved wrong. Equally, of course, those who hoped for the emergence of some brilliant answers to vexing questions were disappointed.
What did emerge was a realization by all leaders present that there was great value in open discussion and in an exchange of opinions. It was obvious, for example, that an easy solution for the complex problem of Rhodesia simply did not exist. This being so, no advantage was to be gained from a prolonged and emotionally charged argument alleging breaches of faith or lack of understanding. Instead, the observations and the admonitions of the several Prime Ministers and Presidents were made and recorded and the meeting moved on to the next item on the agenda. I do not mean to leave the impression that the Rhodesian question was not adequately discussed, or that the conference did no more than touch it in passing. Quite the contrary. The case of Rhodesia's African neighbours and those who supported them was argued with great vigour and skill; nothing material was omitted in order to avoid
4460	COMMONS
Statement on Commonwealth Conference hurting the feelings of others; there was no hypocritical attempt to pretend they did not exist. The Rhodesian debate was honest and it was tough, yet at its conclusion something of considerable significance occurred.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
After looking at the problem in its exact dimensions, after closing in on its many difficulties, men holding opposite views admitted that the true nature of the difficulties was now better understood than before and they noted in some instance, after listening to the comments of others that their rigid attitudes were capable of some modification. Of most importance, however, honourable men agreed honourably to disagree.
There is little headline material in this kind of decision; neither is there much domestic political advantage for individual leaders. But to a world burdened almost beyond endurance by incredibly complex problems of immense moment, an agreement to disagree and to search patiently for solutions and areas of agreement is of immeasurable value. Delegates can walk out of meetings in anger, but they cannot remove with them the underlying cause of their annoyance. Organizations can be broken apart by impatient members, but the act of disintegration contributes nothing to the easing of the original tensions.
The conference revealed in still another way the coming of age of the Commonwealth. For if the African states did not insist that the meeting preoccupy itself exclusively with Rhodesia, neither did the Asian or Caribbean states view the meeting simply as an arena within which to press their own demands for economic assistance. And, in my view, as important as either of these events, none of the white countries attempted to dominate the proceedings on the pretext that their economic development, their political experience or their longer independence gave them any superior wisdom in the solution of new problems. One sensed that at this meeting the participants were equal members; no one pretended to possess all the problems, no one claimed to have all the answers. The 88 contributions to the debates on the five agenda items were remarkably evenly distributed around the conference table.
There is a well known tradition at Commonwealth conferences, Mr. Speaker, which denies to members the right to discuss, without consent, matters affecting the domestic policies of another member, or matters of solely bilateral interest. It is this rule which prevents the meeting being employed as a

DEBATES	January 20, 1969
forum to the particular advantage, or disadvantage, of any single country. It is this rule as well which encourages the participation in general debate of all 28 member states. There is little doubt that in the long run the rule is a wise one. In the short run, it does present a challenge to countries seeking to discuss a problem which, because of its very size, seems to them to be of international, rather than of domestic, implications. At this meeting the Nigerian civil war fell into this category.
The tragedy of Nigeria was mentioned at the conference by Prime Minister Wilson in his opening remarks on the first day. It was the subject of considerable corridor talk and out-of-conference discussions. Though not on the agenda, it was regarded by most delegations-and not least the Nigerian delegation- as of extreme importance.
On Wednesday of last week, at a gathering of heads of government outside of the conference proper, which I attended, the leader of the Nigerian delegation agreed on behalf of his government to enter into fresh talks in London with the rebel representatives, without any pre-conditions to be attached to those talks. He agreed as well that it would be in order for other Commonwealth governments to do what they could to urge the Biafrans to engage in talks on this basis. Before we left London, Canadian officials met with Biafran representatives in an attempt to convince them to do just that. I am deeply disappointed that that attempt was unsuccessful, as were, we understand, the representations of other delegations and of the Secretary General.
I mentioned a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, that the role and scope of the Commonwealth secretariat were defined with more precision than heretofore, at this conference. The general view as expressed was that the secretariat has an important role to play, but that the Commonwealth should not become over-structured. If I may repeat what I said in London at the conference.
As the Commonwealth grows In number of members it increases in diversity. The common ingredients, which were once the adhesive of membership, are now outnumbered by the unique institutions and practices of so many of the members. Nor, wisely in my view, have any steps been taken to create some artificial adhesive or binder. There is no charter, no constitution, no headquarters building, no flag, no continuing executive framework. Apart from the secretariat, which is a fraction of the size one might expect for an organization which encompasses a quarter of the peoples on this earth, there is nothing about the Commonwealth that one can grasp or point to as evidence of a structure.
January 20, 1969

Even the use of the word "organization" creates an impression of a framework which is misleading. The Commonwealth is an organism, not an institution-and this fact gives promise not only of continued growth and vitality, but of flexibility as well.


Mr. Horner:: Did you say flexibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, flexibility.
If this peculiar characteristic of the Commonwealth offers difficulty, as it seems to do, to historians or journalists or persons from non-Commonwealth countries, it is perhaps unfortunate. But surely this unique source of strength should not be surrendered in the name of conformity to accepted institutional practices. The Commonwealth is not a miniature United Nations Organization; the conference is not a decision making body. To attempt to convert it would simply underscore differences of opinion; it would force countries to take sides and to vote against one another. There exist international organizations where this has to be done and where it is done; the Commonwealth is not and should not become a replica of them.
The Commonwealth provides an opportunity for men of good will to discuss with one another, both in plenary session and in the many bilateral meetings, their problems and their hopes for the future; to learn from the wisdom and experience of others. The Commonwealth conference is a forum for men who are as different as God has made them. It is a meeting place where men are able to demonstrate the advantages of dissimilarity, the richness of diversity, the excitement of variety. Is this not what life is all about, to learn, to share, to benefit, and to come to understand?
I think it is. I think Canadians agree with me, for in our own country we exhibit a multiplicity of character a diversity of climate, of topography, of resources, of customs, of traditions, of peoples, which is a segment of the wide world beyond. We accept almost instinctively the view that of the many challenges offered by the 20th century, none is greater than the aspiration of men to live in societies where tolerance and equality are realities. The Commonwealth is a means toward such a goal. To suggest, as some do, that the Commonwealth must be more than a forum for discussion or a clearing house for economic assistance from the few rich nations to the many poor ones, is to miss the vital point of the exercise.
Is Canada any less strong, and less united in understanding because Canadians and their leaders engage in constant dialogue, because
DEBATES	4461
Statement on Commonwealth Conference the wealthier provinces accept the principle of tax equalization? I think not.
So too in the broader international community of the Commonwealth. Human inequality is a political fact of great potency. The most effective means of reducing the explosive potential of discrimination is to meet other persons as political equals and to assist them toward economic equality. That is what the Commonwealth does. I believe these are useful exercises. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I assured the London conference that Canada firmly supported the Commonwealth principle.
In this brief resume I have purposely not catalogued many of the matters discussed at the conference for these are dealt with in the communique issued at its conclusion and may more conveniently be found therein. I should now like to table the communique in English and in French. If hon. members agree, the communique might be printed as an appendix to Hansard, as has been done on previous occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For communique above referred to, see appendix.]


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: At the close of the Commonwealth conference I went to Rome where, after a most cordial interview at the Quirinal Palace with His Excellency the President of the Italian Republic, Mr. Saragat, I was received at the Vatican by Pope Paul VI.
We spoke of peace in the world, the difficulties of maintaining it, for instance in Vietnam and in Nigeria, and of the importance of promoting it more particularly through the respect of human rights and international aid.
In the course of the conversation, I informed the Holy Father that Canada was considering setting up diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The Pope welcomed the idea, stating that the Vatican would be honoured by such relations. But he added that he would leave it to Canada to decide on taking that initiative.
Pope Paul VI spoke very warmly of Canada, the problems and the tremendous possibilities of which he is well acquainted with. Speaking of our fellow-countrymen, the Holy Father said he was convinced, and I quote:
What unites them is stronger and more important than what divides them.
January 20, 1969

Statement on Commonwealth Conference
And, speaking of the great cause of peace in the world, he added:
Your country, Mr. Prime Minister, Is basically a pacifist country, and we like to think that it will continue, under your leadership, to bring with authority its precious contribution to so vital a cause to the future of humanity.
After this most cordial interview, I also had the pleasure of conversing with the Prime Minister of the Italian Republic, Mr. Mariano Rumor, and several of his ministers.
Together, we reviewed the international situation. We also talked about the relations between Canada and Italy. In this regard, we noted the real progress that has been accomplished in the last few years, and we expressed the hope that this progress will continue.
That, in brief, sums up that day in Rome.

[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I wish to begin by saying we all welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back. We missed him-except I do not think he was ever really very far from sight. I could report to him on the pace of legislative achievement in the house during his absence, but I am sure this would be unnecessary. Undoubtedly he has spent the past week end in his usual blameless way, curled up in front of the fire with a copy of Votes and Proceedings before him, and by now he is well informed as to what has transpired here. By now he is up to date, at least in this sense of the phrase. Possibly, even trendy. In any case, I venture to speak on behalf of parliament and the country in saying how pleased we are that the Prime Minister is back safe and well.
I am pleased, too, that he found the conference useful. However, I do feel it necessary to speak quite frankly here on occasions such as this, because I think we must be frank. Parliament and the country have to consider in a very serious way what has transpired in the course of this conference, and I think the country has the impression, as I have the impression, that never in the history of the Commonwealth has Canada made a contribution less important and less useful than has been made by the Government of Canada in connection with this conference. I do not think any leader of the opposition has ever had occasion in the past to reproach the government of this country in any way in this connection, and, if I may say so, I hope it will not be necessary again. None of us in my party-and I think this applies to every

informed person in the country-is under any illusion as to the difficulty of arriving at a consensus among members of the Commonwealth at this conference; but there are things which should be said.
The Prime Minister has spoken about the usefulness of this organism, the British Commonwealth of Nations, the Commonwealth exists as a unique world organization-I refer to it as an organization. It is multi-racial, worldwide, embracing, as the Prime Minister said, about a quarter of the population of the world, bringing together both established and emerging nations of varying views and colours. The Commonwealth has helped maintain international order and understanding and has helped to reduce international tension in the past. Any international organism or institution, whatever one might choose to call it, which serves as a bridge between the races on a worldwide basis is surely of great value today. It has a potential for good both in the present and in the future-I am speaking here in terms only of its minimal potential and not in terms of tradition-and to that extent it is well worth using, well worth preserving, well worth strengthening.
Canada, in the past, has played a leading role in that community. I think it is quite clear that other members of the Commonwealth are disappointed in the lack of Canadian leadership last week. It would not be surprising if there had grown among other members of the world community a concern that Canada, might similarly abstain from other international responsibilities that she has heretofore assumed.
While we welcome some of the structural improvements in relations between Commonwealth members to which the Prime Minister has referred, we must recognize with regret that these were due to the initiatives of others. There seems little doubt that the negative attitude of Canada in abstaining from the responsibility of leadership has contributed, I fear, to a weakening of the Commonwealth, and I fear a weakening of its importance as an institution or organism in the modern world.
Secondly, I want to acknowledge the truism that Canada cannot be all things to all people. That is one of those truisms to which the Prime Minister subscribes. Let us then choose the policy areas and objectives and methods that we can pursue with the realistic prospect of making a significant contribution. That truism has the corollary that there are some areas in which we are unusually qualified to contribute. The Commonwealth is one area
January 20, 1969	COMMONS
where we have had a decisive influence in the past.
I am not suggesting that Canada should concentrate exclusively on the Commonwealth role or that we should neglect our responsibilities to the United Nations, to NATO or to any other institution with which we are connected and which is important to world peace. But we do have very significant opportunities to assist in the development of the Francophone communities. The nature of our country enables us to play an important role here. All of these things that are of value not only to us but to international understanding should be explored and pursued.
Our role in the Commonwealth remains of central importance to Canada, not because of historic connections alone but because our service to the Commonwealth in the past has built up a trust and a confidence which it would be wrong to weaken or to waste.
In another forum the Prime Minister has sought to excuse his abstention on the ground that he was a "New boy". He may be a new boy with the Commonwealth, but Canada, sir, is not. In any case I have too much respect for the Prime Minister to find him believable in his self-assumed pose as the innocent abroad.
Canada's failure at the Commonwealth conference-the government's failure on behalf of Canada-has at its root, I think, the same attitude of casual non-involvement and noncommitment that also threatens to become the trademark of the government's response to urgent domestic concerns. At a London press conference the Prime Minister brushed aside suggestions that Canada might have an important role to play in certain mediation efforts, by disclaiming any desire to engage in international heroics or to intervene in the domestic affairs of any nation. I am sure that it was not from any tendency toward heroics that the Prime Minister's predecessor helped bring the Commonwealth through an impasse on Rhodesia on a previous occasion, nor from which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) took the lead in bringing the Commonwealth to its agonizing decision on the South African question. It was, I suggest, at least partly because these questions threatened the existence and integrity, and therefore the usefulness, of the Commonwealth as an institution.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
In referring to Nigeria the Prime Minister told us of the assurance the Nigerian federal
DEBATES	4463
Statement on Commonwealth Conference authorities gave him that they were willing to meet Biafran representatives, without there	being any	previous	conditions.	ThePrime Minister expressed regret that efforts to encourage the Biafrans to meet with the Nigerians at the negotiating table have proved fruitless to date. I could not help observing from press reports that the day after	the Prime	Minister	announced	thatNigerian federal authorities had agreed to hold discussions with the Biafrans without there	being any	previous	conditions,	thatsame proposal was clearly and emphatically withdrawn by a spokesman from the Nigerian government. I, too, am disappointed that the effort to bring Biafra and the Nigerian federal government together has proved fruitless. I hope that what has been done indicates on our part a firm intention to keep lines of communication open so that Canada may, even	if belatedly, play a	leading role in
alleviating starvation and bringing a measure of peace to that unfortunate country.
It is noteworthy that the United States has recently begun to take initiatives in this field. The sale of four aircraft to the churches and the review by the United States State Department of that country's entire policy toward Nigeria offer a small but perceptible glimmer of hope that the civilized world will accept some responsibility in ending the conflict and suffering in Biafra. Canada has been lax in accepting any responsibility there. One hopes that the government will take advantage of any initiatives taken by the United States or other countries.
I do not claim to be an historian, but I suspect it will be said that in the last week or two Canada for the first time failed to exercise leadership in the Commonwealth; that, as a result, the Commonwealth has suffered; that its importance as a modern worldwide institution has been weakened; and that Canada's potential influence in the world is less now than it was a few weeks ago. Certainly as a result of this conference our position has not been enhanced, but diminished. Canadians and the entire international community will regret this. Let me add, the world does not stand still for the government of Canada. Opportunities passed up are opportunities lost for alleviating the anxieties and problems facing the world, as well as for supporting existing institutions. Mr. Speaker, events in the world do not wait for the Prime Minister's programmers.
The Prime Minister referred to his Vatican visit, indicating he favours an exchange of diplomatic representatives with the Vatican.
January 20, 1969

Statement on Commonwealth Conference He said this despite the understanding we were given that this matter is still under review and that the government has not taken a definite decision on it. If the government should decide to exchange diplomatic representatives with the Vatican it will be following a political step taken by many other countries. While not wishing to carp, I am surprised that the Prime Minister has taken this initiative after having some weeks ago expressed doubts, in an offhand way perhaps, about the usefulness of existing methods of diplomacy. Perhaps his was only a passing doubt. The entire country will await with interest the government's decision on the exchange of representatives with the Vatican.
Finally, may I touch briefly on several matters that have caused me concern. I emphasize that the matter of the coverage of the Prime Minister's personal life by the press is a matter between him and the journalists, and is no concern of mine. But for the Prime Minister to suggest, even in a lighthearted way, that it would be possible in this country for the government to use the police in order that a private vendetta might be pursued, would be to joke in inexcusable taste. As it happens, there was nothing lighthearted about the remark, nor the context in which it was made. So, sir, I cannot take that remark lightly and I must tell the Prime Minister in all frankness that I found his remark deeply disturbing.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I join the Leader of the Opposition in welcoming the Prime Minister home and I tell him that he can be certain that some of the reports to which he apparently took objection did not in any way affect the reputation he has across this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Lewis: He remains the object of pristine purity now, just as he was when he left for London-no more and no less.
I wish it were possible to welcome the Prime Minister's contribution in London, but I am afraid that is not possible. In fact, it is not easy to know what Canada's contribution at the meeting of Commonwealth prime ministers was. I regret to add that after the Prime Minister's lengthy and not very exciting lecture this afternoon about the Commonwealth, we are still in the dark as to precisely where he stood on what issue, and for what reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I should like to remind the Prime Minister that the question of Commonwealth structure and the desirability of keeping that structure informal was discussed many years ago. There are a good many people in this country, and in this house, who are fully aware that there was general objection to any kind of formal structure to the Commonwealth, and that there was some difficulty even about setting up the Commonwealth secretariat. Therefore the Prime Minister's lecture about the details of this informality this afternoon were both unnecessary and unrevealing. I should have been much more interested in a statement about the relevant issues that plague many Commonwealth members, as well as his statement on where he stands on those issues and what he said about them. It appears that Canada's participation at the recent conference amounts to one big zero.


An hon. Member:: A flop.


David Lewis: I happen to be one who was and still is strongly opposed to imperialism. Over the years I have frequently been critical of the activities of the British empire, just as I have criticized other empires. Partly for that reason I, and people sharing my opinions in Canada, Britain and elsewhere, welcomed the emergence of the Commonwealth, because it was an association of free and equal states representing all continents and all races. I spoke about this when we discussed this matter in the house before the Prime Minister left for London.
I was proud of the British government which, under Prime Minister Attlee, immediately after the war embarked on the road to freeing British colonial possessions.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Despite the declaration of a great statesman, a declaration many hon. members will recall, that he was not prepared to preside over the liquidation of the empire the fact is that the British Empire was liquidated. The fact is that a large number of the now free and independent members of the United Nations gained their freedom and independence by action of successive British governments after decades, and in some cases centuries, of struggle.
These new countries gained their independence without the kind of war and destruction which occurred in Indo-China and elsewhere. This is a matter of great pride to all of us associated in the British Commonwealth, and is the important historic development which
January 20, 19S9	COMMONS
produced the Commonwealth, and is the important historic development which produced the Commonwealth and made it a useful instrument in the international world.
It has always seemed to me, and it seems to me now, that an informal association of this sort could, if employed imaginatively, make an important contribution toward progress in the relationships between the developed and the developing nations, and in the relations of peoples of different races and colours. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that such an informal association can achieve meaningful results only if it is prepared to confront the real gut issues haunting the new world and members of the Commonwealth.
One of the overriding international facts since the end of the second world war is the challenge to the exclusiveness and complacency of the white club which had previously dominated all international relationships and all international policies.
The new developing nations are still weak and poor economically. They are still uncertain politically, but increasingly they are developing a sense of self-assurance and participation, and are demanding an equal place. In this context a meaningful and frank dialogue, to use the Prime Minister's favourite word, among the heads of the members of the Commonwealth can be of immense value; but as far as our part in the discussions in London was concerned, our part in the dialogue, it was neither meaningful nor frank.
These are the reasons I feel a deep disappointment about the Prime Minister's role at the conference, as that of a non-spokesman. It is again necessary to recall Canada's particular opportunities in this field. From all our contacts and all our reading we know Canada has a special place of trust among the developing nations. We emerged as an independent nation almost a century before them, but we also emerged out of colonial status. We have never an imperial goal or imperialistic intentions. This has given us a special position which we can either use to promote good will, or which we can dissipate by appearing to be insensitive to the problems which worry the new members of the Commonwealth.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), 29180-282J
DEBATES	4485
Statement on Commonwealth Conference when he was prime minister used Canada's position properly and admirably in the case of South Africa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I remind this House of Commons that the right hon. Mr. Pearson used Canada's special position properly and admirably when he represented Canada at the meetings of the prime ministers of the Commonwealth. Through those actions Canada gained stature in the Commonwealth and credit throughout the new world. It is a great pity that the present Prime Minister, who raised so much hope, produced so much disappointment, and played no part of consequence, relevance or importance in the debates which took place.
He was reported to have said that he wished the conference to deal with the problems of the future and give less concern to the difficult problems of the past and the present. May I say, I hope without sounding too unkind, that I have seldom heard or read such a fatuous statement, unworthy of a man of intellect-as if the future descends from heaven in a vacuum unaffected by the past, as if indeed it is possible to think of building a future without removing the ills and the ill will created by the past and persisting into the present.
This attitude of uncommitted dilettantism explains the absence of the kind of commitment to first principles which is essential in dealing with such primeval problems as human equality, with which many sections of the Commonwealth are concerned.
I am not for one moment suggesting that solutions were easy or even that the meeting of Commonwealth prime ministers could have produced them, particularly in view of the informality and the structure of the Commonwealth. But I am saying that a position on Rhodesia which says "Nibmar if possible but not necessarily Nibmar" is a betrayal of first principles and cannot but do damage to the future of the Commonwealth.
If the struggle for equality in Rhodesia should be lost temporarily-if that should happen-at the least let us not be a party to giving Smith the appearance of legality, by supporting a deal which negates solemn assurances previously given by the British Prime
4466	COMMONS
Statement on Commonwealth Conference Minister and the British government. This seems to me another disastrous application of the theory of quiet diplomacy, another example of irritating ambiguity which makes no one happy except the person who is determined to avoid forthright commitment.
I do not want to take longer than I have, Mr. Speaker, although all of the comments have been rather lengthy today, I feel the same way as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) does about Nigeria-Biafra. I notice that the Prime Minister in reporting on that point today told us merely about the first undertaking of the Nigerian delegation in London to meet with the Biafrans without pre-conditions, but I presume because he has not yet been brought up to date he failed at the same time to remind the house that the leader of the Nigerian delegation in London had stated the next day that he would not meet with Biafrans to discuss any ceasefire, that he would only meet with them to demand their surrender. That was hardly a readiness to meet with the Biafrans without pre-conditions. I also echo the hope that the Prime Minister will pursue a little more actively than in the past the objective of peace in Biafra-Nigeria.
I believe in the potentialities of the Commonwealth precisely because it is informal, precisely because it reverses the attitude of the empire, precisely because it does represent so many parts of the world. But if the Commonwealth conferences in the future are treated by a leading government like that of Canada in the same innocuous and irrelevant way as was instanced in the last one, then I suggest to you that association in the Commonwealth will become meaningless and frustrating for many of its members; and I remind the Prime Minister and other hon. members that nothing leads faster to alienation and disruption than does frustration. I therefore hope our attitude will change in the future.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word about the Prime Minister's report on his visit to Rome. I am sorry to have to carp about this without even expressing the hope that I don't sound carping. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have made a great deal out of the fact that they seek to involve the people of

DEBATES	January 20, 1969
Canada in the review of international policies, and yet here is a very important step, an important step in terms of the Canadian community, and without any warning to the people of Canada, or indeed to members of this house. Without anything but indirect warning, apparently a decision is made and the Prime Minister goes to Rome and says we are anxious to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican.
It may be a very good idea; but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that one of the reasons the Prime Minister is reported as having given for that step is certainly the worst possible reason one could present. The Prime Minister was reported to have said that just as we are interested in other French speaking countries, because we have a large number of French speaking people in Canada, so we are interested in some relations with the Vatican because we have a large number of Roman Catholics in Canada. I cannot think of a more irrelevant reason for taking an important international step. If it is useful to have diplomatic relations with the Vatican-as it well may be, because the Vatican is a good listening post and provides us with a good international association of value to Canada in our role in the world-then by all means let us have it, but not on the basis of religious division in Canada or across the world.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The Prime Minister was certainly in one of his less cautious moods when he made that statement, although I am not sure his caution makes me feel happy about the future of my country. Finally I say it is still not too late to have an involvement in this matter, to have participation, certainly by members of this parliament. I am beginning to suspect that the Prime Minister's talk about participation really amounts to an opportunity being presented to him to explain his position rather than a two-way participation; but it is still not too late.
In order to avoid the kind of divisive results which have plagued the unity of our country for so long in various ways, and in order that the step of establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican may be made on the correct basis without divisive repercussions in Canada, I appeal to the Prime Minis-
January 20, 1969	COMMONS
ter and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to refer this matter to the external affairs committee of this House of Commons for the purpose of study, and hearing from the minister and officials of the department the uniting international reasons that make this representation necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I close the way I started. I welcome the Prime Minister home. With many others in this house and across the country,
I am deeply disappointed about his nonrepresentation at the conference so far as Canada is concerned.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat the remarks, very accurate for the most part, of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), as well as those of the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Lewis). Allow me, however, to express our views on that recent journey.
First, the London reporters were disappointed with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) as we all have been since last June 25. Nevertheless, I congratulate the Prime Minister for being aware of it, since he said, in his opening remarks, that there had been disappointment. Of course, we have been disappointed, but why? Canada would have been proud to see the Prime Minister assert himself as one of the leaders of the 24 heads of government who gathered in London, in order to meet the aspirations of all those people and justify the trust put in him.
But the reaction was entirely different.
It is true that nobody expected that concrete solutions would come out of this conference, but neither was it expected-nor hoped for-that his sliding down banisters, his escapades and his sensational doings would be the main topics discussed about his participation to the conference. This is unfortunate, and one does not know whether to laugh or cry. That is the reaction in our areas. In fact, that is the actual thinking of the people, who are of course awfully disappointed.
The Prime Minister seems to have linked together recognizing both the Vatican and Communist China. In Quebec particularly, people have made the connection. His visit to the Vatican seemed to be one way of making the recognition of China easier to accept.
Of course, we are in favour of the establishment of diplomatic relations with the Vatican, and we have been for years. When
DEBATES	4467
Statement on Commonwealth Conference I was still a child, members of Parliament were already advocating it in the house. If finally that takes place in 1969, it would be a very normal thing, in my opinion; the Prime Minister could then be commended for it. But if it is a political play to make something else more palatable, such means is, to my mind, somewhat despicable.
Of all the Prime Minister's escapades, I would like to recall the one which impressed me the most, and which was told to me by some government members. We sympathize with the few Liberal members who were given a good beating by the Prime Minister in London itself. We are wondering-and some pointed it out to me-who are the members concerned? We are anxious to hear from the Prime Minister the names of those "undesirables", as he said. According to him, undesirable people found their way into the Liberal party at the time of the election and he added, very candidly, that fortunately, most of them had not been elected. By using the expression "most of them", he meant undoubtedly that some of them were elected.
Therefore we sympathize with those unfortunate members who not only have a sword of Damocles hanging over their head but who are wondering whether they are among that group of undesirables or, more precisely, "bums", as the newspapers reported, and which could be translated freely in French by the word "undesirables". For all these reasons, I sympathize with the Liberals.
Many questions are cropping up after this conference. However, we are happy about the return of the Prime Minister because the way things were going, we were wondering how low the reputation of Canada would sink.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the last five years, what were, by province, the amounts paid under the Municipal Grants Act, R.S.C., 1952, c. 182?
2.	Has the government issued instructions concerning the payment of municipal and school taxes by Crown corporations and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is the nature of such instructions?

January 20, 1969
Questions


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: province during the years 1963-64 to 1967-
1.	Payments under the Municipal Grants 68 were as follows:
Act, R.S.C., 1952, c. 182, as amended, by
Province		Amount of Payment (Dollars)			
1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68Newfoundland	162,169	76,200	394,332	220,241	209,983Prince Edward Island	129,573	120,887	171,644	155,377	159,442Nova Scotia	3,628,011	2,582,672	2,982,208	2,855,309	2,837,334New Brunswick	779,926	1,573,086	1,254,949	963,472	363,072Quebec	4,605,709	7,491,881	7,008,359	7,354,395	8,095,850Ontario	14,441,308	15,452,445	16,814,122	17,452,941	19,337,426Manitoba	1,882,411	2,259,318	1,980,941	2,014,545	2,541,837Saskatchewan	943,960	1,005,386	1,151,816	1,164,104	1,218,501Alberta	2,050,474	2,162,148	1,908,909	2,207,699	2,230,721British Columbia	2,743,088	2,704,449	2,779,417	3,006,950	3,223,802Total	31,366,629	35,428,472	36,446,697	37,395,033	40,217,9682,	(a) and (b). Policy statements of a general nature have been given on two occasions as follows: In a statement to Parliament on November 14, 1949 the Minister of Finance explained a new government proposal for the payment of grants in lieu of municipal taxes on properties of federal departments. He also indicated that the federal government would, if Parliament approved the new grant policy for municipalities, authorize its Crown corporations to work out fair and equitable arrangements with the municipalities in which their properties were situated.
On May 15, 1967, following a review by Cabinet of Crown corporation practice concerning grants in lieu of real property taxes, Ministers responsible for Crown corporations were advised of general policies to be followed in respect of such grants. These policies were that Crown corporations should pay full grants in lieu of real property taxes on property which they owned and occupied in respect of municipal fiscal years commencing after December 31, 1968 if they were not already doing so. It was noted that Crown corporations should exercise their own discretion concerning the meaning of full grants in lieu of taxes, but that they should pay in respect of real property tax on a basis generally not less favourable than that provided in the Municipal Grants Act concerning payments on departmental properties and that they should pay in full in respect of local improvement and frontage charges wherever the services financed by such charges brought significant benefit to their properties.
[Mr. Fortin.)
In addition to the foregoing, the government has formulated specific policies concerning grants by particular Crown corporations. For example the National Harbours Board was authorized in 1967 to increase the scale of its grants from a 1965 basis of 50 per cent of the formula contained in the Municipal Grants Act to 62J per cent for 1966, 75 per cent for 1967, 87J per cent for 1968 and 100 per cent for 1969 and subsequent years. With respect to government owned railways entrusted to the Canadian National Railways for management, the policy now in effect developed from an undertaking to Parliament by the Minister of Transport on September 8, 1966 in connection with the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-231, the National Transportation Act. The Company now pays grants in lieu of normal real property taxes, local improvement charges, business taxes and license fees imposed in lieu of business taxes, subject to certain limitations. Grants in lieu of taxes are not paid in respect of personal or movable property or in respect of property which would be excluded under Section 2(c) (iii) of the Municipal Grants Act such as tunnels, bridges, pole lines and trackage. Local improvement charge grants are not paid in respect of work bringing no significant benefit to Railway property. Business tax grants are subject to a general limitation that the rates and bases used in calculating the grants are not to be such as to discriminate against the Railway either in respect of competing forms of transportation or in respect of business generally.
January 20, 1969

Other instructions of this nature may be expected in the future as a result of a continuing review of the application of grant policy to particular Crown corporations and to particular circumstances.


TORONTO-ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS FOR AIRPORT
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the government policy in acquiring additional lands to increase the size of Toronto International Airport?
2.	Are real estate appraisers and other officials of the Real Estate Branch of the Department of Transport presently negotiating to acquire additional lands for the expansion of Toronto International Airport and are they empowered to negotiate in good faith and can the parties with whom they are negotiating rely on their authority to do so on behalf of the Department of Transport and, if not, will the Department of Transport advise to what extent it will support the negotiations enumerated by the Department of Transport real estate officials with owners of real estate presently required for Toronto International Airport expansion?
3.	What formula is in effect or is contemplated by the government in determining the value to be placed on acreage required for the expansion of the Toronto International Airport (a) immediately adjacent to the present airport (b) building on lands adjacent to present airport (c) business disruption and/or business loss allowance
(d)	moving costs (e) appraisal, legal and other costs (f) real estate commissions and/or allowances (g) long and short term lease arrangements?
4.	What is the time plan proposed by the government to acquire lands for immediate needs at Toronto International Airport?
5.	What are the priorities of construction for the expansion of (a) the present runways (b) the proposed new runways on existing lands (c) the proposed new runways on lands to be acquired?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: 1 and 2. There are presently no plans to acquire land for expansion of Toronto International Airport.
3 and 4. Not applicable in view of answer to parts 1 and 2.
5.	(a) Existing runway 05L-23R to be lengthened from 5700 ft. to 10,500 ft. starting in 1969 for completion in 1971. (b) and (c) Not applicable.


PONTIAC, QUE.-LABOUR RETRAINING
Mr. Lefebvre: 1.	How many persons were accepted in the labour retraining courses in Quebec and in the constituency of Pontiac?
2.	How many persons completed an application form and were refused in Quebec and in the constituency of Pontiac?
Questions
3.	What was the total amount paid to the said persons in Quebec and in the constituency of Pontiac?
4. (a) How many schools in Quebec were used for the said courses and what was the total amount paid for rent (b) what are the names of the schools and places where such courses are given in Pontiac and what was the total amount of rent paid to each of the said schools?
5.	(a) What are the teachers' salaries in Quebec for teaching these courses (b) what salaries were paid to the teachers in Pontiac?
6.	(a) What other expenses were incurred in detail in Quebec (b) what other expenses were incurred in detail in Pontiac?
7.	What courses were offered to the public in (a) Quebec (b) Pontiac, and how many men and women participated?
8.	How many of such persons (a) in Quebec (b) in Pontiac, were under 20 years of age, 20 to 25 years of age, 25 to 30 years of age, 30 to 35 years of age, 35 to 40 years of age, 40 to 45 years of age, 45 years and over?
9.	What is the percentage of persons who completed their courses and found a job in line with the course they took (a) in Quebec (b) in Pontiac?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Number of persons on courses under OTA during the fiscal year 1967-68: Quebec, 41,277; Pontiac, 39.
2.	This information is not available since clients do not complete application forms. Authorization for training is made by a manpower counsellor based upon a counselling interview during which individual training needs are assessed in relation to the needs of the labour market.
3.	During the 1967-68 fiscal year, payments were as follows:
Quebec
Training Costs	Allowances
$15,171,000	$12,171,000
Pontiac
$21,300	$40,040
4.	(a) During the fiscal year 1967-68 training was given in 334 centres in Quebec. The Department of Manpower and Immigration buys places in courses from the Department of Education and the Department of Labour. Course costs may include rent but the amount paid for rent is not separately identified in Departmental records, (b) No courses were organized in Pontiac during the 1967-68 fiscal year; trainees were sent to training centres elsewhere. Our records on course costs do not include details of individual cost grants.
5.	While teachers' salaries are included as a component of the cost which the Department will pay to the province, our records do not separately identify the amounts.

January 20, 1969
Questions
6.	In calculating the cost of courses, the following costs may be included: salaries and other benefits for instructors, supervisors, administrators, and support staff; materials, tools, supplies and teaching aids; rental of space and equipment; travel of instructors and teachers; maintenance, repair and minor renovations; cost of providing power, gas and water and other services; interest on loans raised for the purpose of providing facilities; depreciation; residences; and provincial administrative costs. Details of the amount paid for each cost component are not separately identified in our records.
7.	Courses offered to the public were as follows: (a) In Quebec, Basic educational upgrading-Grades 7 to 11; skilled development courses in 65 trades and occupations; language courses for immigrants; apprenticeship courses in some 30 trades; and upgrading courses in agriculture, (b) In Pontiac, Manpower clients from the constituency of Pontiac were sent to other centres for training on trainee travel grants. Of the 39 trainees, 26 were enrolled in meat-cutting and heavy equipment operator training courses. Of the 41,277 trainees in Quebec, 32,733 were males. Of the 39 trainees from Pontiac constituency, 38 were males.
8. The distribution of trainees by age is as follows:
	Quebec	Pontiac
19 years and under	7.8%	0%20 to 24 years	30.0%	18%25 to 44 years	46.5%	82%45 years and over	10.8%	0%Age not reported	4.9%	0%
9. The large majority of Quebec clients of Canada Manpower Centres receiving training in the 1967-68 fiscal year entered classes during the winter season. The time lapse since their re-entry into the labour market is of such short duration that accurate details on their improved employabilit3r as a result of their training are not available yet. Departmental studies to determine the degree of this increased employability are underway.


COLLECTION OF PROVINCIAL INCOME TAX
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	At the federal provincial conference, held on November 4 and 5, 1968, did the federal government obtain permission from the provinces to collect their income taxes for a period of 5 years?
2.	What is the date of the first agreement, did the Province of Quebec agree to it and what was the intended duration of this agreement?
[Mr. MacEachen.l
3.	Were there other requests for extensions and, if so (a) on what dates (b) did the Province of Quebec always agree?
4.	What percentage of these taxes has Quebec recovered since ratification by the provinces of this agreement (a) on succession duties (b) on corporate income (c) on individual income?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Those provinces that were parties to the existing tax collection agreements indicated their intention to enter into an amending agreement to extend the collection arrangements for an indefinite period subject to termination by Canada or a province on due notice being given.
2.	The first agreements were for a period of five years with effect from January 1, 1962. Quebec did not enter into such an agreement.
3.	The agreements were renewed for a further period of two years with effect from January 1, 1967. Quebec did not enter into an agreement.
4.	The tax collection agreements do not cover succession duties. The agreements cover the collection of taxes on individual incomes and on corporation incomes.
Quebec has collected her own individual and corporation income taxes at rates determined by that province. During the years covered by the tax collection agreements and to facilitate the provinces imposing their own taxes, the Government of Canada has, since
1961, abated:	(a) its individual income tax	
payable by the following		percentage points
for the years	specified:	
	In Quebec	In other provinces
1962	16	161963	17	171964	18	181965	44	211966	47	241967	50	28and subsequent years (b) its corporation income tax rate by the following per cents for the years specified: In Quebec In other provinces 1962-66	10	91967	10	10
and subsequent years
The larger abatements to Quebec were associated with contracting out arrangements. The larger abatement in the individual income tax field was associated with youth allowances and the shared cost programs specified
January 20, 1969

in Schedule I of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act. The larger abatement in the corporation income tax field was associated with the grants to universities.
While there are no tax collection agreements with respect to succession duties, the Government of Canada has abated the federal estate tax in provinces that imposed succession duties by 50 per cent up to March 31, 1964, and by 75 per cent subsequent to that date. If a province did not wish to raise its own taxes to take advantage of the increased federal abatement effective April 1, 1964, the Government of Canada offered to make a cash transfer equivalent to the value to the province of the 25 per cent increased abatement. Quebec did not choose to increase its succession duties. In consequence, the federal estate tax has continued to be abated by 50 per cent in that province and, in addition, a cash transfer equivalent to the value of the additional 25 per cent has been paid to Quebec.


CANADIAN BOX CARS ON U.S. RAILWAYS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many boxcars of (a) Canadian National Railways (b) Canadian Pacific Railway were in the United States on September 1, 1968, October 1, 1968, November 1, 1968, and November 21, 1968 respectively?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Canadian National Railways:
			Number of
		Box	such Cars
		Cars in	suitable
		United	for Grain
		States	Loading
September	1, 1968	9,783	3,266October 1,	1968	10,138	3,688November	1, 1968	11,184	4,730November	16, 1968	11,573	4,760Canadian Pacific Railway:	September	1, 1968	5,598	*20%October 1,	1968	6,681	20%November	1, 1968	7,722	20%November	21, 1968	8,110	20%
^Canadian Pacific unable to produce such a figure from their records. 20 per cent is an educated guess of the average number of C.P. box cars on U.S. lines suitable for grain loading.
Questions


APPOINTMENT OF AIR CANADA OFFICIALS
Mr. Diefenbaker: Was the Board of Directors of Air Canada acting on the recommendation of the government in the appointment of (a) the President (b) the Chairman of the Board, of the Corporation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The appointments were made by the Board of Directors following liaison and discussion with the government as the ultimate shareholder pursuant to normal corporate practice.


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


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1.	In the period July 1, 1968 to December 3, 1968, the Information Division, Department of Agriculture released: Fifty-five individual press releases and twenty-two editions of the weekly bulletin "NEWS from the Canada Department of Agriculture". Each issue of "NEWS" contains from four to eight articles.
2.	(a) $500; (b) No stencils were used-offset duplication used instead; (c) $7,650; (d) $4,240; (e) $625.
3.	(a) 20 lb. No. 7 White Bond; (b) 1,500,000 sheets-$3,750.
4.	870 man hours.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS SALES
Mr. MacLean: 1.	What was the aggregate value of sales of the 1968 series of Canada Savings Bonds up to November 15, 1968?
2.	What was the aggregate value of the 1968 series of Canada Savings Bonds purchased with (a) "new money" (b) by the cashing of bonds of other issues?
3.	What was the cost to the government of selling the 1968 series of Canada Savings Bonds for (a) advertising (b) commissions (c) other costs?

January 20, 1969
Questions
4.	What will be the aggregate interest payable per annum on the 1968 series of Canada Savings Bonds?
5.	What is the aggregate increase in interest charges to be paid in the current year on debt converted from previous bond issues to the 1968 Canada Savings Bond issue?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	Up to November 30th, sales of 1968/69 Series Canada Savings Bonds amounted to $3,219 million par value.
2.	It is not possible to establish accurately the extent to which outstanding issues of Canada Savings Bonds were directly converted into the new issue. However, November redemptions of Canada Savings Bonds (for all purposes) on a preliminary basis, were $2,278 million par value.
3.	(a) $1,617,000 (Preliminary); (b) $28,672,000 inclusive of issuing fees (Preliminary); (c) $1,125,000 (Preliminary).
4.	Interest is payable on the 1968/69 Series Canada Savings Bonds at the rate of 5| per cent for the first year, 6J per cent for the second year, 6f per cent for the third, fourth and fifth years and 7 per cent for the remaining nine years. If the amount outstanding on November 1, 1969 were as in (1), the interest which would be payable would be $185,380,000.
5.	The answer to this question depends on the extent to which outstanding issues of Canada Savings Bonds were directly converted into the new issue. As indicated in question 2, this information is not available.


FINANCIAL AID ON SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING
Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government contemplating any direct financial aid to municipalities to offset the capital cost of (a) senior citizens housing (b) facilities (c) equipment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am informed by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: At the present time the federal government, subject to action that may result from the report of the task force on Housing and Urban Development, is not contemplating any additional direct financial aid to municipalities to offset the capital cost of (a) senior citizens housing (b) facilities and (c) equipment to that already available under Sections 16A, 35A, 35D and 35E of the Natinal Housing Act, as outlined below.
(a)	(1) Under Section 16A, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation may make a loan to a public or a private non-profit corporation of up to 90% of the lending value for a period not exceeding 50 years to assist in the construction or acquisition of a housing project or housing accommodation of the hostel type for rental to families or individuals of low income including senior citizens.
(2)	Under Section 35A, the Corporation may undertake jointly with the province the construction or the acquisition of a public housing project or housing accommodation of the hostel type for rental to families and individuals with low income including senior citizens. The federal share of the capital cost and operating losses or profits may not exceed 75 per cent of such capital cost, operating losses or profits (operating expenses include amortization of the capital cost). The remaining 25 per cent is borne by the province or shared in such proportions as may be agreed upon between the province and the municipality.
(3)	Under Sections 35D and 35E, the Corporation may make a long term loan and contributions to operating losses to a province, municipality or public housing agency wholly owned by a province or a municipality for the construction or acquisition and operation of a public housing project or housing accommodation of the hostel type for rental to families and individuals of low income including senior citizens. A loan may be up to 90 per cent of the cost of the project, contribution to operating losses may be in an amount not exceeding 50 per cent of these operating losses (operating expenses include the amortization of capital cost).
(b)	With regard to financial assistance for "facilities" in housing projects financed under (a) above, a "housing project" is defined as a project, together with the land upon which it is situated, consisting of one or more houses, or one or more multiple-family dwellings or a combination of houses and multiple-family dwellings, together with any public space, recreational facilities, commercial space and other buildings appropriate to the project.
(c)	With regard to financial assistance for "equipment" in projects financed under (a) above, the lending value or capital costs for hostel accommodation may include the hard furnishings reasonably required to make a project operable. This would include in addition to built-in equipment, such moveable items as bedroom, lounge and cafeteria equipment as well as sofas, beds, desks, tables and chairs.

January 20, 1969


VOCATIONAL TRAINING EXPENDITURES
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	Since the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act was proclaimed, how much has the government spent, hy province (a) In capital expenditures (b) for the vocational training of unemployed workers (c) for the vocational training of secondary school students (d) for the training of technicians in technological institutes
(e) for the training of teachers and instructors
(f) for the training of apprentices (g) for the training of persons past school age (h) for research programs?
Questions
2.	Has the government received one or more requests for an extension of these agreements from the Government of Quebec and, if so, when and what was the government's reply?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Table
attached-Information on training of persons past school age is not available.
2.	No.

1.	FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING UNDER THE TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING ASSISTANT ACT
		(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(f)	(h)
	Capital Grants!1]							
Allotment at $800 Per Capita	Claims Paid to Nov. 30, 1968	Training of Unemployed Workers (Program 5)	Vocational High School Training (Program 1)[2]	Technician Training (Program 2)[2]	Vocational Teacher Training (Program 7)[2]	Apprentice- ship Training [d	Training Research^]$	$	$	$	$	*	$	$Newfoundland	
Prince Edward Island	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
Ontario	
Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Northwest Territories	
Yukon Territory	35.063.180 7,100,000 51.391.180 42.811.180 .... 373,940,720 .... 349,506,360 56.646.360 58.291.180 79.203.180 90.122.360 1,359,180 962,928	22,358,946 2,725,196 24,962,826 9,499,178 213,100,398 316,165,512 19,949,295 26,756,370 73,829,345 51,054,755 70,444 957,820	8,166,342 1,413,801 8,769,138 2,865,095 47,571,792 83,289,821 10,769,034 6,088,278 5,846,591 5,372,785 44,039 522,489	42,758 221,710 875,157 767,885 2,691,000 4,872,434 939,339 987,580 1,246,549 1,382,601 462 74,775	207,669 104,017 425,651 21,498,423 6,009,177 532,582 1,325,653 3,073,305 2,308,213 27,073	91,979 7,016 48,865 251,767 477,460 802,211 99,730 45,486 989,159 117,578 1,183 19,381	4,958,867 348,635 3,809,170 5,392,450 23,661,240 14,100,732 1,763,561 3,713,991 14,738,900 8,939,757 167,479 308,265	13,849 10,785 132,756 260,258 2,778 750Canada	.... 1,146,397,806	761,430,085	180,719,205	14,102,250	35,511,763	2,951,815	81,903,047	421,176
fl] Based on cost-sharing arrangements, the flow of federal expenditures depending on claims from the provinces.
[^Expenditures for 1967-68 not included because the breakdown by program is not available.
[3]Includes Program 3 (trade and occupational training) and apprenticeship training.
[4J Program started in 1965-66.
Department of Manpower and Immigration December 17, 1968
4474	COMMONS DEBATES	January 20, 1969
Questions
January 20, 1969

Questions


LAY DISPENSERS IN INDIAN OR ESKIMO COMMUNITIES
Mr. Chappell: 1.	How many lay dispensers (persons without a degree or diploma in pharmaceutical training) serve Indian or Eskimo communities on a full time or part time basis?
2.	How many of these lay dispensers have wire or wireless communication facilities with the "outside" and through these facilities prompt contact with a doctor, nurse or graduate pharmacist?
3.	Do any lay dispensers dispense drugs requiring a prescription and, if so, how many?

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National
Health and Welfare): 1. Registered		Lay	
	Nurses	Dispensers	Total
Eskimo			
Communities	10	17	27
Indian			
Communities	10	77	87These serve	as required subject	to the
demands of their normal occupations.
2.	All except 11 are reported to have radio, radio telephone or land line telephone available for their use in the community. The individual problems of each of the eleven exceptions are under investigation in an means of improving the existing communi-attempt to determine the feasibility and means of improving the existing communications situation.
3.	Lay dispensers do not compound prescriptions but all distribute previously compounded or prepared preparations on the orders of doctors and nurses. All may distribute common or household remedies such as would be in a family medical pack or family medicine cabinet.


COMMENTS ON C.B.C. NETWORK PROGRAMS
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Do CBC Network Radio and Television Stations keep a record of letters, telegrams and telephone calls commenting on programs?
2.	Are these records tabulated in any way, for national as well as local programs?
3.	If not, for what reason?
4.	If so, to whom are these tabulations available?
5.	Will the CBC make such tabulations and records available to Members of Parliament if requested to do so?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the CBC as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	To the appropriate network and local programming and executive officers of the CBC.
5.	As in the past, CBC will provide to Parliament, when requested, tabulations of audience mail, telegrams and telephone calls received in response to specific programs.


CANADIAN OIL RESERVES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 962-Mr. Harding:	(supplementary)
1.	What were Canada's estimated oil reserves for the years 1961 to 1967 inclusive in terms of (a) barrels (b) number of years' supply?
2.	For the years 1961 to 1967 inclusive, how many barrels of oil were (a) produced in Canada (b) imported (c) consumed in Canada (d) exported?
3.	For the years 1961 to 1967 inclusive, what percentage of possible maximum capacity was produced by Canada's oil industry?
Mr. Yves Foresf (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1 and
3.	See Hansard January 15.

2.


TABLE II
[Stage Direction]
Crude Oil and Equivalents
1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967(a) Produced in Canada (bbls)	229,536,932	261,730,553	279,385,373	229,904,372	319,626,441	349,134,903	381,168,805*(b) Imported into Canada (bbls)	133,249,113	134,517,707	147,720,870	143,530,957	144,184,281	146,076,898	170,418,463(c) Consumed in Canada (refinery runs to stills)** (bbls)	294,800,711	309,642,383	331,312,534	342,102,682	354,889,964	380,121,691	390,123,366(d) Exported out of Canada (bbls)	64,146,897	91,580,232	90,875,816	101,258,926	108,010,297	123,691,342	150,344,567
Includes synthetic crude production of 453,541 barrels [DOT][DOT]Includes natural gas liquids runs.
4476	COMMONS DEBATES	January 20. 1969
Questions
January 20, 1969

Mr. Howard (Skeena): Were any recommendations made at the "Resources for Tomorrow Conference" held in Montreal a few years ago and, if so, what was each such recommendation and what action has the federal government taken with respect thereto?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: There was a large number of recommendations and suggestions made at the Resources for Tomorrow Conference held in 1961. These may be found in "Resources for Tomorrow, Volume 3", the Proceedings of that Conference.
It would be impossible to spell out all the actions the federal government has taken with respect thereto. The government's responses have pervaded the research, planning and development of programs of the various departments responsible for renewable resources, and has influenced the organization of the government's departments, interdepartmental institutions, and federal-provincial institutions.


FORCED RETIREMENTS FROM DEPARTMENTAL ADJUSTMENTS
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Is it government policy to permit the forced retirement of civil servants in connection with departmental adjustments such as the current amalgamation of the Departments of Industry and of Trade and Commerce and, if so, under what authority is such action taken?
2.	If pre-mature or forced retirement is resorted to in such circumstances, what are the criteria for selection of civil servants to be thus designated?
3.	Does bilingual ability or the lack of it have any part in determining civil servants who are slated for compulsory retirement?
4.	In such cases is any form of special retirement allowance, augmented pension or other compensation offered the civil servant forced out of the Public Service and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Beard):: 1. When employees are displaced as a result of departmental adjustments, it is Government policy to arrange wherever possible for the reallocation of these employees to vacancies elsewhere in the Public Service that have arisen as a result of attrition, the introduction of new programs, or the expansion of existing programs. This reallocation may be accompanied by retraining programs, assistance in removal expenses or both. Only as a last resort is there a form of "forced retirement".
Questions
Under Section 29 of the Public Service Employment Act "forced retirement" is authorized by subsection (1) which reads as follows:
"29(1) Where the services of an employee are no longer required because of lack of work or because of the discontinuance of a function, the Deputy Head, in accordance with regulations of the Commission, may lay off the employee".
The government policy in connection with the departmental reorganization announced by the Prime Minister on July 12, 1968, which included the amalgamation of the Departments of Industry and Trade and Commerce, was explained in a Circular released jointly by the Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission on July 26, 1968. This Circular, in describing a program designed to ease the impact upon employees whose jobs are eliminated by the reorganization^ stated that it is expected that in most cases reassignment will be possible.
2.	and 3. The selection of employees to be laid off is determined according to their reverse order of merit as specified in Section 34 of the Public Service Employment Regulations.
4.	In addition to pension entitlement under the Public Service Superannuation Act, an employee who is laid off from the Public Service is eligible for a form of special retirement allowance. This takes the form of "retiring leave" under the provisions of Section 43 of the Public Service Terms and Conditions of Employment Regulations under the Financial Administration Act. Retiring leave is earned at the rate of one week for each year of service up to a maximum of 26. Upon the request of the employee this retiring leave may be paid in the form of a gratuity. In the case of those Public Service employees for whom collective agreements have already been signed there is a provision for severance pay which replaces retiring leave or the gratuity, but is similar in value to the employee.


PERSON IN CHARGE OF BANK OF CANADA NUMISMATIC COLLECTION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	What is the name and title of the individual in the employ of the Bank of Canada who is in charge of acquiring items for the Bank's numismatic collection and how long has the incumbent held this position?

January 20, 1969
Questions
2.	On what date did the Bank establish the position referred to in part 1 hereof, and what are the names of each person who preceded the incumbent with an indication of the time during which they held this position?
3.	What is the salary paid to the incumbent and what travelling and living expenses have been provided to him for each year since he has held his present position?
4.	Did the incumbent previously work for the Bank in another capacity and, if so, what were those other capacities and did he at any time retire from the Bank's employ?
5.	What qualifications does the incumbent have for the current position and do these qualifications include the hobby of numismatism and, if they do, has the Bank made a determination about any possible conflict of interest?
Hon, E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):
1.	Major Sheldon S. Carroll is the Curator of the Bank of Canada's Numismatic Collection. He was appointed to this position on September 1, 1983.
2,	3 and 4. I do not regard it as in the public interest to answer questions concerning internal management of the Bank of Canada unless the information is a matter of public record. The information requested in parts 2, 3 and 4 of this question is not a matter of public record.
5.	The Department of Finance has used Major Carroll on a number of occasions to value numismatic collections or items given to the Crown. The Department has satisfied itself that he is a qualified professional numismatist who has studied the subject for over 30 years and was the founding president of the Canadian Numismatic Society and the Canadian Numismatic Research Society. Major Carroll does not have a personal numismatic collection.


INFORMATION RESPECTING ITEMS IN BANK OF CANADA NUMISMATIC COLLECTION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): With respect to the numismatic collection held by the Bank of Canada, for each item in the said collection, what is its (a) year (b) country of origin, and (c) grade and quality?


Edgar John Benson: I do not regard it as in the public interest to answer questions concerning the internal management of the Bank of Canada unless the information is a matter of public record. The information requested in this question is not a matter of public record, though of course parts of the collection are displayed publicly from time to time.


WITHDRAWAL FROM HEALTH GRANT PROGRAMS
Mr. Burton: 1.	Has the federal government withdrawn from any federal-provincial health grant programs since January 1, 1964 and, if so, what are the programs?
2.	On what date did the federal government withdraw from financial participation in each program?
3.	What was the last full fiscal year in which the federal government participated in each such program and what were the expenditures of the federal government in each said program in that fiscal year?
4.	Has the federal government given notice to the provinces of its intention to withdraw from participation in any other federal-provincial health grant programs and, if so, what are the programs and on what date is it the intention of the government to withdraw from these programs?
5.	What was the expenditure of the federal government for each of the programs during 1967-68 and on each of the programs referred to in Part 4?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Yes. Hospital Construction Grants program, March 31, 1970. General Health Grants program, excluding the Public Health Research Grant and the Professional Training Grant over a three-year period, presumably by March 31, 1972.
5.	Hospital Construction Grant, $16,401,662.43; General Health Grants, excluding Quebec's share with respect to the agreement under the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act., $29,630,276.94.


DETENTION OF REFUGEE SEAMEN
Mr. Haidasz: 1.	How many refugee seamen are detained in Canadian ports or in detention in Canadian institutions?
2.	How many refugee seamen have asked for political asylum in Canada in the years 1966, 1967, 1968?
3.	How many of these seamen have been deported in 1966, 1967, 1968?
4.	What are the nationalities of these seamen?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. On December 6, 1968, 13 seamen were being detained in Canada under authority of the Immigration Act. Nine of these seamen were citizens of Poland, one was a citizen of Italy, one was a citizen of the People's Republic of China and the remaining two were citizens of Greece.
2.	No figures are available.
3 and 4. Since no figures are available concerning the number of seamen who sought
January 20, 1969	COMMONS
political asylum in Canada, it is not possible to determine how many of such seamen have been deported or what their nationalities were.


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


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Production):: 1. Yes, 16,
2.	(a) $144; (b) $184; (c) $847; (d) $859; (e) $350.
3. (a) 16 and 20 lb. standard bond; (b) approximately 300,000 sheets. Cost: $600.
4.	1,153.


REHIRING OF JEAN ROBERT OUELLET
Mr. Valade: 1.	Did the Minister of Manpower and Immigration rehire Jean Robert Ouellet, who was a candidate in the constituency of Sainte-Marie at the federal election of June 25, last and, if so, what are his present duties?
2.	If Mr. Ouellet was not rehired by the Minister, was he hired by another department and by which department?
3.	What is his present salary and what was his salary for the position he held prior to the last election?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer for
DEBATES	4479
Questions
the Department of Manpower and Immigration is as follows: 1. Mr. Jean Robert Ouellet was granted leave without pay from noon of May 17 to June 26, 1968, which was approved by the Public Service Commission in accordance with Section 32(3) of the Public Service Employment Act. He returned to his former position, Manpower Consultative Service Representative, in the Quebec Region.
2.	See paragraph 1 above.
3.	His salary prior to the last election was $13,303. His present salary is $13,908, which includes an annual statutory increase to the second step in the scale of rates for his occupational group and level.


CM.H.C. URBAN RENEWAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. Lewis: 1.	For the years 1950, 1955, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, what have been the total expenditures of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for urban renewal programs?
2.	For the same years what is the expenditure distribution of these programs for municipalities with populations (a) over 1 million (b) 500,000 to under 1 million (c) 100,000 to under 500,000 (d)
50,000	to under 100,000 (e) under 25,000?
3.	What are the anticipated or forecasted expenditures of C.M.H.C. for urban renewal projects in the next 1-3 years in each of the categories listed in (2) above?
4.	What is the general policy of the Government of Canada with regard to urban renewal programs in Canada?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. See Schedule "1" below.
3 and 4. Existing urban renewal policy is presently under study by the Task Force on Housing and Urban Development. The report of the Task Force will be made shortly and studied by the government. After consideration of the report, government policy will be announced.


EXPENDITURES FOR URBAN RENEWAL PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Schedule "1"
Municipal Population	1950	1955	1960	1961	1962	19631,000,000 and Over	
Nil	Nil	22,000.00	1,083,399.47	2,568.43	1,912,264.11500.000	to 999,999	
Nil	Nil	1,406,194.57	1,010,231.42	694,238.39	139,573.19100.000	to 499,999	
Nil	Nil	311,042.86	415,650.92	1,672,455.75	718,145.0250.000	to 99,999	
Nil	Nil	419,763.15	367,900.51	1,817,762.65	1,397,445.60Under 25,000	
Nil	Nil	45,404.95	19,049.35	4,918.13	10,361.97
Nil Nil 2,204,405.53 2,896,231.67 4,191,943.35 4,177,789.89
[Stage Direction]
January 20, 1969
Questions
Municipal Population	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968*$	$	S	$	$1,000,000 and Over	
778,232.14	996,454.21	916,765.88	50,000.00 Nil500.000	to 999,999	
346,680.47	667,649.77	2,166,923.68	1,676,948.83	1,128,063.18100.000	to 499,999	
2,509,981.87	2,326,438.90	2,820,467.07	3,887,051.60	2,822,540.2650.000	to 99,999	
643,953.53	992,310.42	775,658.08	1,816,876.39	3,999,802.08Under 25,000	
16,218.57	58,680.37	91,337.15	854,081.76	550,688.28
4,295,066.58 5,041,533.67 6,771,151.86 8,284,958.58 8,501,093.80
'This covers expenditures from Jan. 1, 1968 to Oct. 31, 1968.

Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who are the individuals working for Kates, Peat, Marwick and Company of Toronto, Ontario, who conducted a study for the Department of Manpower and Immigration, and what amount was paid to that company for that study?
2.	What is the academic background of each of these people?
3.	What is the professional experience of each of these people?
4.	When will a final decision be made about implementing the recommendations made to the government by the company?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The answer for the Department of Manpower and Immigration is as follows: 1. B. A. Griffith, H. V. Fullerton, W. Henry, R. lives and R. Shepherd. The company is still working on the study and has been paid to date $24,000.
2 and 3. See attached.
4.	The final report is not yet completed, but because of its nature, no recommendations are expected.
B. A. Griffith B.A., M.A., Ph.D.: Graduated from the University of Toronto with a Ph.D. in Mathematical Statistics; On the staff of the University of Toronto from 1946-58 attaining the position of Associate Professor and Head of the Mathematical Statistics Department; Executive Vice President of KCS Ltd., (which later became Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co.), 1958-1966; Associate with Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co., 1966. H. V. Fullerton B.A.Sc., M.A., P. Eng.: Graduated from the University of Toronto with a B.A.Sc. in Engineering Physics in 1948, and a M.A. in Physics in 1949; Worked with Polymer in Operations Research between 1949-56; Director of Operations Research with KCS Ltd., 1956-59; Vice President of KCS Ltd., 1959-1966; Partner in Charge of Transportation Division 1966-1968;
[Mr. Hellyer.l
Left Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co. in 1968 to join staff of Queen's University. W. Henry B.A.Sc., P.Eng.: Graduated from the University of Toronto in 1958 with a B.A.Sc. in Engineering Physics; Computer Systems Specialist with Ontario Hydro, 1958-1963; Manager with Transportation Division of Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co. working in marketing and research analysis, 1963. R. lives, B.A.Sc., P.Eng.: Graduated from the University of Toronto in 1967 with a B.A.Sc. in Engineering Physics; Manager with Transportation Division of Kates, Peat, Marwick & Co., 1967. R. Shepherd: Senior draftsman with Ontario Hydro, 1948-1954; Employed in oil industry 1954-1965; Field supervisor with KCS Ltd., 1965.


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FORECASTS BY LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	Does the Department of Labour undertake economic forecasting on employment opportunities in Canada?
2.	If so (a) what are the Department's forecasts for employment opportunities in Canada and in the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months (b) what are the Department's forecasts of unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, for Canada, and for the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FORECASTS BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Mr. Broadbeni: 1.	Does the Department of Finance undertake economic forecasting on employment opportunities in Canada?
January 20, 1969

Questions
2.	If so, (a) what are the Department's forecasts for employment opportunities in Canada and in the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months (b) what are the Department's forecasts of unemployment rates, seasonally adjusted, for Canada and for the five main regions of Canada, i.e., British Columbia, the Prairies, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces, in the next three months, six months and twelve months?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. The Department of Finance conducts a continuing reappraisal of the economic situation in Canada and forecasts a number of economic aggregates based on alternative assumptions as to future developments. These reappraisals, which include forecasts and changes in employment, are used for internal purposes within the Department.


FUNCTIONS OF C.B.C. STAFF AT COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE
Mr. Mazankowski: Are any employees of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation accompanying the Canadian delegation to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference and, if so, what are their positions, their current salaries and their expected functions at the Conference?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: Sixteen C.B.C. employees were sent to London in connection with coverage of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference for the four C.B.C. English and French radio and television networks. The employees were assigned to carry out their regular functions of producer, reporter, announcer and script assistant. It has not been customary to require the Corporation to disclose individual salaries.


INDIAN-ESKIMO BUREAU DIRECTOR
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who is the Director of the Indian-Eskimo Bureau?
2.	When was the appointment made?
3.	Was the position advertised and applications asked for?
4.	What is the academic background of the successful applicant?
5.	What experience in working with Indians did the successful applicant have?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Mr. Eric E. Boyd is Chief of the Indian-Eskimo Bureau.
2.	October 1, 1968.
3.	The appointment was made in accordance with Section 13 of the regulations under the Public Service Employment Act. See Canada Gazette Part II, Volume 101 SOR/67-129 Section 13.
4.	Senior Matriculation with specialized training and experience in communications, public relations and business administration.
5.	Mr. Boyd is conversant with all programs, policies and legislation affecting the Indian and Eskimo people. Since joining the Department he visited many Indian communities in all areas of the country and attended several meetings of Indian Associations and Band Councils.


MICHEL MALETTO-ACTIVITIES IN COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon-: The Sydneys):
1.	Were "volunteers" attached to the Company of Young Canadians involved in any way in the activities leading to the takeover of a junior college at Ste. Therese, Quebec, by students in November?
2.	Was Michel Maletto at the time of the takeover in question attached in any capacity to the Company of Young Canadians and is he still attached to the C.Y.C. and, if so, in what capacity?
3.	What amounts of money have been paid to Michel Maletto by the Company of Young Canadians?
4.	While attached to the Company of Young Canadians was Michel Maletto involved in any way with students organizing the takeover of the junior college at Ste. Therese, Quebec and was he in any way involved in activities leading to the takeover of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Montreal and, if so, what was the extent of his involvement in these activities?
5.	Was Michel Maletto instructed at any time by any person in authority in the Company of Young Canadians to involve himself in activities leading to student takeovers of educational institutions in the Province of Quebec and, if so, in pursuit of what particular policy directive issued to the Company of Young Canadians by the government or authorized by Parliament?
6.	Is active involvement in organizing student takeovers of provincial educational institutions one of the functions of the Company of Young Canadians?
7.	What are the functions of the Company of Young Canadians as authorized by the Parliament of Canada?
8.	What is the amount of total monthly pay and allowances awarded to Company of Young Canadians "volunteers"?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Company of Young Canadians as follows: 1. No.

January 20, 1969
Questions
2.	Mr. Michel Maletto has been employed by the Company of Young Canadians since December 5th, 1966. He is presently a project officer.
3.	Mr. Maletto is a category 3 employee. The maximum salary for this category is $10,000 per annum.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	No.
7.	The objects of the Company are to support, encourage and develop programs for social, economic and community development in Canada, or abroad through voluntary service.
8.	Volunteers receive a living allowance to cover room and board (this figure varies according to the cost of living in various parts of Canada); a personal allowance of $35 per month; a book allowance of $25 per year; and a clothing and equipment allowance of $100 per year. The total amount for December, 1968 was $43,612.18.


BAY ST. LAWRENCE, N.S.-ENROLMENT FOR ENGINE COURSE
Mr. Muir (Cape Brefon-: The Sydneys):
1.	Has the Minister of Manpower and Immigration received a number of letters from fishermen in the Bay St. Lawrence, N.S., area, to the effect that they have been prevented from taking an engine course organized under the local Manpower Office because all those selected for the course are employees of one employer, Victoria Co-Operative Fisheries?
2.	Will the Minister take steps immediately to set up an additional course for those excluded from the first course?
3.	Will he take steps to ascertain why all of those enrolled in the present course were taken from the same organization and why others were excluded and will he investigate charges that favouritism has been shown in the selection of candidates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Correspondence has been received from one person. In addition, I received verbal representations and discussed the problem with those concerned while visiting the area early in December 1968.
2. Some time prior to the asking of Question 1,089 steps to set up an additional course were already taken. Arrangement of this course was hampered by the fact that only one mobile trailer classroom for a course in engine repair is available from the Province

of Nova Scotia. However, we were able to purchase places in a second course in nets and gear repairs which started on January 6 in Dingwall. Most, if not all, of those who were not referred to the first course are enrolled in this one.
3. A thorough investigation was carried out some weeks ago and it was determined that no favouritism was involved in the referral of persons to the first course. The course could only accommodate a maximum of ten people who had to be selected from a total of seventeen applicants. This, of course, meant that selective criteria had to be used to ensure that those candidates who could most benefit from the training would be chosen. I am advised that referral was made after consideration of such matters as the individual's need for training, his ability to benefit from it, the date of his application for it, marital status, number of dependents and, in one case veterans preference. Records show that most, if not all, of those omitted from the first course applied for training within a few days prior to the start of this course.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the policy of the federal government towards recovery of default payments orj loans made by the Industrial Development Bank?
2.	Is a loss of approximately half a million dollars per year on this program considered normal?
3.	What steps will the federal government take to avoid losses on loans made by the Industrial Development Bank?
4.	How many companies or individuals had a loss written off by Industrial Development Bank, what is the name of each company or individual and where was each located in Canada and what was the amount of write-off in each case and why was the amount written off?


Edgar John Benson: 1.
The Industrial Development Bank Act assigns to the Board of Directors the responsibility of managing the Bank, including matters relating to the recovery from debtors of amounts owing.
2.	The record of amounts written off, by fiscal years, is given on pages 28 and 29 of the IDB Annual Report for the fiscal year 1968.
3.	See reply to 1.
4.	While the IDB provides comprehensive aggregate data on its operations in its Annual Report, it has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to make public information concerning individual accounts.
January 20, 1969


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES BOOT PURCHASES
Mr. Godin: 1.	In 1967, how many pairs of shoes and boots did the government purchase for the three integrated forces of the Canadian Army?
2.	From how many manufacturers were these shoes and boots purchased?
3.	What is the name and address of each?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: 1. 111,027 pairs.
2.	Nine.
3.	G. A. Boulet Ltd., St-Tite, P.Q.; Kaufman Footwear Industries Ltd., Kitchener, Ont; Greb Industries Ltd., Kitchener, Ont.; MacFarlane-Lefaivre Mfg. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; J. A. & M. Cote Ltd., St. Hyacinthe, P.Q.; The T. Sisman Shoe Co. Ltd., Aurora, Ont.; The Acton Rubber Ltd., Acton Vale, P.Q.; Gresvig Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.; Koch Shoes Ltd., Newfoundland.


FEDERAL REVENUE COLLECTED IN QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Of the total revenue of the federal government for the 1967-1968 fiscal year, what amount was collected in Quebec?
2.	Of the total federal expenditures for the 19671968 fiscal year, what percentage was spent in Quebec?
Questions


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. Information is not now available to provide an accurate answer to this question and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.


SUBSIDIZING OF GOLD MINING OPERATORS
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): Does the federal government in any way subsidize gold mining operators and, if so (a) how much was paid for this purpose during the last fiscal year (b) to what companies were these payments made (c) how much was paid to each of them?


John James Greene: Financial assistance is given to operators of gold mines in Canada under the provisions of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act. (a) The total assistance payable under the Act to gold mine operators with respect to the calendar year 1967 amounted to $15,152,976; (b) and (c) The amounts payable for the year 1967 to each operator was as follows:
Operator of Mine
Annco Mines Limited Aunor Gold Mines Ltd.
Barnat Mines Ltd.
Bralorne Pioneer Mines Ltd.
Bremner, J.
Burgelman, N and A.
Cariboo Gold Quartz Mining Co. Ltd. Chimo Gold Mines Ltd.
Cochenour Willans Gold Mines Ltd. Cominco Ltd. (Con)
Consolidated Mosher Mines Ltd. Dickenson Mines Ltd.
Discovery Mines Ltd.
Dome Mines Ltd.
East Malartic Mines Ltd.
Hallnor Mines Ltd.
Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines Ltd. (Ross)
Kerr Addison Mines Ltd.
Lamaque Mining Co. Ltd. (Lamaque) Lamaque Mining Co. Ltd. (Teck-Hughes) Little Long Lac Gold Mines Ltd. (Dubuisson)
Location	Assistance
of Mine	Payable
Ont.	$ 154,980
Ont.	724,818
Que.	422,678
B.C.	500,054
Yukon	1,150
Yukon	2,297
B.C.	37,539
Que.	85,677
Ont.	168,521
N.W.T.	280,320
Ont.	221,273
Ont.	507,276
N.W.T.	101,589
Ont.	1,392,767
Que.	632,020
Ont.	318,378
Ont.	1,281,517
Ont.	212,939
Ont.	489,811
Que.	700,890
Ont.	174,955
Que.	12,519
1 COMMONS	DEBATES	January 20, 1969Orders for Returns	Location	AssistanceOperator of Mine	of Mine	PayableLolor Mines Ltd.	N.W.T.	29,400Macassa Gold Mines Ltd.	Ont.	443,483MacLeod-Cockshutt Gold Mines Ltd.	Ont.	21,774MacLeod Mosher Gold Mines Ltd.	Ont.	252,415Madsen Red Lake Gold Mines Ltd.	Ont.	625,407Marban Gold Mines Ltd.	Que.	279,735McIntyre Porcupine Mines Ltd.	Ont.	978,638Norbeau Mines (Quebec) Ltd.	Que.	284,423Pamour Porcupine Mines Ltd.	Ont.	659,394Perret, F.	Yukon	626Preston Mines Ltd.	Ont.	290,273Renabie Mines Ltd.	Ont.	340,982Sailer, A.	Yukon	832San Antonio Gold Mines Ltd.	Man.	137.622Sigma Mines (Quebec) Ltd.	Que.	714,930Spruce Creek Placers Ltd.	Yukon	3,309Sullivan Consolidated Mines Ltd.	Que.	297,391Supercrest Mines Ltd.	N.W.T.	46,600Thorsen, H.	Yukon	1,948Tundra Gold Mines Ltd.	N.W.T.	270,036Upper Canada Mines Ltd.	Ont.	492,949Vol Mines Ltd.	N.W.T.	25,809Wasamac Mines Ltd.	Que.	508,938Wilmar Mines Ltd.	Ont.	22,094


INMATES IN FEDERAL PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Godin: What was the number of inmates in federal government penitentiaries for each of the following years 1930, 1935, 1940, 1945, 1950, 1955, 1960, 1965?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: The numbers of inmates on register as of March 31 in each of the years specified were:
Year	Inmates
1930	3187
1935	3552
1940	3772
1945	3129
1950	4740
1955	5507
1960	6344
1965	7518



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Has the government recently awarded dairy products contracts to Winnipeg companies?
2.	If so, what is the name of the company?
3.	What is the amount of the contract?
4.	What are the names of company directors? 
5.	Were public tenders called before contracts were awarded?
6.	If so, what were the names of companies bidding for this business and the amount of their bids?
7.	What government departments are serviced by the successful contractor?
Return tabled.


SABRE AIRCRAFT TENDERS
Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	What tenders have been submitted for the purchase of the 26 Sabres now on sale by the Canadian Government?
2.	What are the amounts of each tender and the name of each tenderer who wants to acquire the 26 Sabres?
3.	Has it been officially decided to sell these Sabres individually?
4.	How much have these Sabres cost the Canadian Government since they were put into service?
Return tabled.


OLD AGE ASSISTANCE
Mr. Beaudoin: 1. How many persons, by province and in the federal Constituency of Richmond, received allowances under the Old Age Assistance Act during 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968?
January 20, 1969

2.	What is the average amount now being paid under the said Act (a) by province (b) in the federal Constituency of Richmond?
3.	How many persons in the federal Constituency of Richmond are between 65 and 70 years of age?
Return tabled.


WINTER WORKS-RICHMOND
Mr. Beaudoin: During the years 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, how much did the government spend on Winter Works in the federal Constituency of Richmond and in each of its parishes?
Return tabled.


CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED
Mr. Durante: 1.	How many individuals have been employed by Canadian Arsenals Limited and its associated divisions each year, for the past ten years?
2.	What is the total value of small arms manufactured each year, for the past ten years?
3.	What is the description and total amount of ammunition manufactured during the year 1967?
4.	What has been the total cost to the federal government per year, for the past ten years, in the operation of Canadian Arsenals Limited and its associated divisions?
Return tabled.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why it is that simple questions cannot be answered, unless the Secretary of State is adopting the attitude toward the house that he adopts toward members in refusing regarding current matters to reply to letters for two months. On November 19, I placed on the order paper question No. 803 regarding the opening in Saskatoon of an office for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang). This two-month delay indicates an arrogant disregard for parliament. The answer should be available. I ask the Secretary of State to give more attention to these matters than he has in the past, and I refer particularly to the way he delays in answering correspondence.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask
Inquiries of the Ministry the Secretary of State whether he has now had an opportunity to consider the statements made by Miss LaMarsh regarding alleged kickbacks in connection with certain films, and the exercise of undue control of Radio Canada by separatists, and reference of this subject by the former president of the corporation to the former Prime Minister? Has the Secretary of State had an opportunity to familiarize himself with these charges and has he made any decision as to what he intends to do? Will he inform the house as to what action he proposes to take?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition first asked this question, I answered him that one could, of course, initiate inquiries only if there were sufficient details concerning the charges made.
Now, I can tell him that as regards the first question which he seemed concerned about, namely an accusation to the effect that the CBC president, before submitting to the CBC Board of Directors a report that he himself had asked for, had allegedly deleted or suppressed parts pertaining to kickbacks in the buying of films, this accusation was precise enough for the C.B.C. and myself, on my own authority, to check whether it was true or false. Now, we have contacted four out of seven of the authors of the first report-two others have died since and the third could not be reached-and our investigation showed that the former C.B.C. president (Mr. Ouimet) could not have falsified this document by deleting from it this kind of accusations, since the writers assured us that the said report never mentioned any kickbacks, scandals, or films, taken or not, that might have been stolen, as reported in Miss LaMarsh's book. The report did not even mention such things, but was entirely devoted to the C.B.C. organization or rather, I should say, to the line of authority chart within the C.B.C. This charge, precise enough for us to investigate, proved to be entirely false and groundless, since it was impossible for the president of the C.B.C. to have done what Miss LaMarsh accused him of.
As regards the other accusations, they seem to me extremely vague, or they are not real charges, but strictly references to facts of which the interest must be assessed in 1969. I must say that this question, both for the C.B.C., as far as they are concerned, and for the minister, as far as he is concerned, is still being examined.
January 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the chairman of the committee on broadcasting whether he would consider requesting Miss LaMarsh to attend the committee to substantiate or elaborate on the charges she has made in public, in order that the committee will have an opportunity to settle this matter for the benefit of the people of Canada and also for the benefit of the C.B.C., which now stands under some suspicion? Will the chairman of the committee entertain such an investigation?


Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to refer this matter to the subcommittee on agenda and procedure for discussion, and perhaps report back to the house.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether he has directed any questions by correspondence or otherwise to Miss LaMarsh to seek clarification of the statements she has made other than those facts received in a privileged position?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have not written any personal letter to Miss LaMarsh, but I have had several opportunities to say on radio and on television that we would inquire into any charges sufficiently precise.
I suppose that owing to the great interest shown by this author for the C.B.C.-she has written a very long chapter on the subject- she must sometimes listen to the news on radio and look at TV. She certainly knows that we are anxious to read any precise charge that she may not have published, but that she could substantiate. We will conduct an inquiry as soon as she makes any precise charges.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statements made over the week end by the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in respect of separatists in the C.B.C. and Radio Canada, along the lines of statements made by Miss LaMarsh, is the minister looking into the question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot refer to statements made outside the house-I was going to say


by ordinary members but I will not do so-by members other than cabinet ministers.


David Orlikow: May I rephrase my question. Is the Secretary of State prepared to ask the chairman of the standing committee to request that Miss LaMarsh bring any information she has about separatism in Radio Canada to the committee?


Gérard Pelletier: I have already stated, Mr. Speaker, that I considered the standing committees of the house as organizations serious and responsible enough to determine themselves their course of action when Parliament entrusts them with a mission.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The other day I asked the then Acting Prime Minister a question, and it has since been drawn to my attention that perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is responsible for some part of my question. I refer to the question whether or not he has prepared or is preparing amendments to the Canada Corporations Act or other relevant legislation to deal with foreign ownership of Canadian industry in relation to the question of protecting Canada's economic independence?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it was announced in the Speech from the Throne that I would be introducing amendments to the Canada Corporations Act. I have subsequently said I will be introducing amendments to deal with corporate disclosures. These amendments are in the process of being drafted and approved. During that process we have before us a number of very excellent and helpful reports, some from the province of Ontario. We have before us the excellent report of the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on prices, and its comments on corporate disclosure. We also have the Watkins report which indicated, and I paraphrase it, that Canada should leave no
January 20, 1969

stone unturned to create greater public disclosure in Canada.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was certain the minister would agree that the report of the joint committee on consumer prices of the House of Commons and Senate was a good report. I suspect he wrote part of it.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: After all, he was the chairman.


David Lewis: Yes, he was the chairman. I would like to ask the minister whether his amendments in any way affect such problems as the policies to be pursued by Canadian subsidiaries of United States multinational firms in terms of sending assets or money back to their parent companies, or the policies that may be pursued with respect to foreign trade and the like, or are the amendments limited to disclosure only?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, some of the matters the hon. member raises could not properly be covered in a companies act or a corporations act. The amendments I will be drawing and introducing will be concerned solely with the legal framework within which companies in Canada operate, and more specifically those that receive letters patent under the Canada Corporations Act.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In order to establish proper diplomatic relations with the Vatican, does he intend to co-operate with the Minister of Justice to withdraw from the omnibus bill the section legalizing abortion?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I am about to direct to the Prime Minister is a personal one. It has to do with references to providing representation to the Vatican. I might point out that I am the only member of this house who has had the the honour of two audiences

Inquiries of the Ministry with Popes, one with Pope John and one with Pope Paul.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize there are arguments on both sides, but does the Prime Minister not realize that Prime Minister King, Prime Minister St. Laurent, Prime Minister Pearson and myself took the stand that if the action were taken of sending a representative to the Vatican it would split this country? Does he not realize, on the basis of the arguments advanced today by the hon. member for York South, that taking this action will bring about a division in this country serious and tremendous in its import?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the right hon. gentleman's question is personal but it is certainly argumentative. However, in view of the interest in the matter the Prime Minister might want to reply.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: If you wish, Mr. Speaker. If the right hon. gentleman is right in saying that it will split this country right down the middle, I think the course of the government would be not to exchange representation with the Vatican. But I have cause to doubt his diagnosis of the country's temper on this matter.


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE-POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF OAKLAND FRANCHISE TO BUFFALO
Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the government contemplating any action in view of the fact there are strong indications that the National Hockey League board of governors are prepared to approve transfer of the Oakland franchise to Buffalo, contrary to their previous pledge to approve Vancouver as the site of the next N.H.L. franchise?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure how urgent this matter is but I sense that hon. members would want the minister to reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: Get the minister out of the penalty box.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my view of some of the past actions of the governors of the National Hockey League is a matter of public record. I have stated that I have no
January 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry evidence that they have acted in the Canadian interest in the matter of expansion or transfers. I would hope that with regard to the Oakland franchise they would take action to demonstrate to me and to the people of this country that they are concerned about hockey in Canada and about having more than two National Hockey League teams in Canada.
My colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has a Task Force which may well recommend some action with regard to the National Hockey League. The Economic Council of Canada will soon be reporting on the Combines Investigation Act and recommending amendments to that act. I hope that by the time I have to deal with amendments to the Combines Investigation Act the governors of the National Hockey League will have demonstrated to me that they need not be included within that act or in some other national or bi-national regulation of professional sport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION
Mr. Robert C. Coaies (Cumberland-Col-chesier North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that aspersions have been cast on the involvement of members of the public service, more especially those associated with the Department of Defence Production, in the refit of H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, can the Prime Minister inform the house what action the government intends to take in this regard?
Right Kon. P.-E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the incident to which reference is made. I will have to look it up.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said he is not aware of this incident. If he would read today's newspapers he would find statements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can only ask questions; he cannot give facts to the house.


Robert Carman Coates: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, a most important matter that casts reflection upon every civil servant in this country has been bandied about not only in the Canadian press but in the international

press, and the Prime Minister informs this house that he is not even aware of it. Surely to goodness-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege. It may be a subject of distress to the hon. member but it is not a question of privilege.


Robert Carman Coates: It is not distress, Mr. Speaker; it is complete frustration.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Although the question was put to the Prime Minister, having regard to the information just given by the hon. member and the fact that this matter is within the knowledge of the Minister of Justice, would he be prepared to say whether an investigation is now being carried out by his department in reference to these serious charges? If there is such an investigation taking place, have any charges been laid to date against anyone, including Canadian officials or other citizens or people in other lands?
Kon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):
Mr. Speaker, this matter was recently brought to the attention of the Canadian public-


An hon. Member:: Not all of it.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa -Carleton):: -as a result of a court case in western Germany. The Prime Minister was out of the country at the time. Allegations of fraud involving certain defence contracts made with Cardinal Engineering and Machinery Company Limited of Montreal were investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and referred to the Department of Justice as long ago as August of 1965. Pursuant to that, on January 12, 1968, a member of the R.C.M.P. swore out an information against Remus Rodaru and Cardinal Engineering and Machinery Company Limited. The information contained some 13 counts of defrauding the government of Canada of various sums of money contrary to section 323 of the Criminal Code.
In late August of 1966 the prosecution was terminated by the local crown attorney, it falling, of course, under the administration of justice within the provincial sphere, largely because of difficulties in obtaining evidence from Germany that would support the case. In that regard, evidence from a man, Erhardt Junkers, was regarded as necessary but it was found it could not be obtained in an acceptable form.
January 20, 1969	COMMONS
Following the termination of the criminal proceedings it was decided to recover, if possible, from Cardinal Engineering and Machinery Company Limited certain sums of money that were felt to be in excess of the fair and reasonable cost of performing the contracts, and on January 6, 1967, the Minister of Industry made an order for this purpose under section 21 of the Defence Production Act. By virtue of that order, Cardinal Engineering and Machinery Company Limited was directed to pay to the Receiver General the sum of $111,643.66.
On February 8, 1967, Cardinal Engineering and Machinery Company Limited gave notice of its intention to appeal that order and the direction of the Minister of Industry to the Exchequer Court of Canada. The matter is now pending before that court. The testimony of Erhardt Junkers in Germany will have to be scrutinized, as it is now being scrutinized, in order to see whether it contains any facts that might have a bearing on the legal proceedings now pending or that may influence the government of Canada to reinstitute proceedings in this country.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. I appreciate the minister's frankness in this matter, but as soon as he receives that information from the German legal officer in that particular area, would he be prepared to make a further disclosure to the House of Commons as to what will be the situation so far as the Department of Justice is concerned?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly be prepared to do that, perhaps when my colleague, the Minister of Defence Production, returns to the house. We will certainly keep the house informed of any new facts in the situation.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Can the minister elaborate and say whether the proceedings in Montreal were terminated by the Crown not calling further evidence, resulting in the dismissal of the charges, or were the proceedings simply adjourned and no further evidence called?


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is an authority on current proceedings-


Erik Nielsen: I have to be.
DEBATES	4489
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Napier Turner: I have said that Crown counsel found that the case could not successfully be proceeded with because of shortage of evidence for the reasons I have outlined to the house.


Erik Nielsen: The minister did not understand my supplementary question, I am sure. Was it simply by way of a stay of proceedings which would permit the Crown to reinstitute proceedings, or is this precluded now by reason of the fact that the case was dismissed?


John Napier Turner: I will have to look into the matter a little more closely.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE POSSIBLE INCREASE IN OLD AGE SECURITY BENEFITS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of last week's federal-provincial conference of welfare ministers and in view of various speeches, statements and press releases that the minister has been issuing, will he at an early date make a statement to the house as to the government's intentions regarding pensions, allowances, the guaranteed annual income, and so on? Can he also state at an early date whether it is the government's intention this year to increase the basic amount of the old age security pension?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated several times by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Finance and by myself in the house, this whole matter is at present under review by the government. When that review will be completed and what firm conclusions we will reach at that time will be announced to the house in the normal course, but it is going on now and it is difficult to say just how soon it will be completed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does that review include a study of the possibility of increasing the basic amount of the old age security pension?


John Carr Munro: It is a factor which will be included in the review.
January 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


INDIAN AFFAIRS-POSSIBILITY OF WITHDRAWAL BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM WELFARE PROGRAM
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises from the same conference and is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Arising from the reports that the provincial governments are not willing to provide welfare service to Indians because of the fear that the federal government might withdraw from the program once it is established, is the Prime Minister in a position to assure the provincial governments that the federal government will not withdraw support unilaterally from such a program?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the kind of unilateral action to which the hon. member refers is not one the government would take. I would not want to speak for the minister responsible for Indian affairs. His policy on this particular point is being presented to the government. I cannot say what negotiations he has embarked upon with the provinces, but whatever they are it will not be done unilaterally.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the proposal made by him to the provinces that they take over welfare services for the Indian people, which are now the responsibility of the federal government, did he propose to the provinces that the federal government was prepared to pay only for 85 per cent of existing welfare programs or did he propose that the federal government was prepared to pay the full amount now and in the future?


John Carr Munro: The proposal was to bring the Indians to whom the hon. member is referring under the provisions of the Canada Assistance Plan but under a different costsharing arrangement which, depending on the province involved, would range from 85 to 97 per cent of the cost. Hopefully it would diminish over the years as the rehabilitation features of the Canada Assistance Plan took effect.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Did the minister give the provincial ministers an assurance that there would be no possibility of a unilateral withdrawal from this program if it was agreed to?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the
majority, if not all, of the welfare ministers were aware that discussions had gone on between the federal and provincial finance ministers as to cost sharing and, if there was a withdrawal, whether tax points would be given up by the federal government and so on, and that all this was in a state of negotiation in terms of the constitution and federal-provincial relations. So that it was not really pertinent to our discussion inasmuch as these discussions have been going on at other levels so far as the whole picture is concerned with regard to the cost-sharing programs that we have.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I recently asked the Minister of Justice whether the rules of the Exchequer Court would be translated into French, and I was told that the new bilingual edition was expected to be published early in 1969. Is the Minister of Justice in a position to indicate the approximate date of publication, in French and English, of the rules of the Exchequer Court?


John Napier Turner: Within a few weeks, Mr. Speaker.



VANCOUVER, B.C.-POSSIBILITY OF CO-ORDINATING COMMITTEE TO RELIEVE CONGESTION

Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the very serious problem of grain congestion at the port of Vancouver, can the minister advise the house whether the recent suggestion to set up a Vancouver co-ordinating committee in the grain trade has been carried out?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced to the house that some meetings had been arranged and indeed meetings have been held in Vancouver of what is in effect a subcommittee of the overall co-ordinating committee involving the grain companies, the Wheat Board, the transportation companies and the terminal operators.
January 20, 1969


Richard Russell Southam: I have a supplementary question. Can the minister say how effectively this committee is working to resolve the very difficult situation which exists at the port?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That would be a matter of opinion, and we usually deal only with facts.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the one asked by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain. In the absence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether any investigation is being made into the feasibility of diverting at least some of the ships now waiting at Vancouver to the ports of Prince Rupert and Seattle? Carloads of dry grain might also be diverted to those ports for loading on such ships. Has any consideration been given to this?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure whether consideration has been given to that specific proposal but I know there was a meeting in Winnipeg of the co-ordinating committee, attended by many other people in the grain industry, at which an attempt was made to find the best solution to the congestion problem at Vancouver so that the ships in the harbour can be loaded.



PERMITS TO MOVE DAMP GRAIN ACROSS PROVINCIAL BOUNDARIES

['I see no objection, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, if any members of the house would like to have copies I would be glad to supply them on request.']
John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in his absence, I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he or the Wheat Board considering the granting of permits for the movement of damp grain across provincial boundaries, without it going to the Wheat Board, to facilitate the movement of damp grain which, if it is not utilized before spring, will be completely spoiled?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have had a large number of representations to this effect and we have had an equally large number of representations from people who do not wish to see a relaxation in the movement of feed grain over provincial borders. The fact is that this does give an advantage to those people living near feed mills adjacent to provincial borders. Therefore it seems that the most equitable way of sharing the over-all market among all the producers who have tough and damp grain, no matter where they live on the prairies, would be through the Canadian Wheat Board.

Inquiries oj the Ministry


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My question dealt with the granting of permits to individual farmers and in that way allowing the Wheat Board to keep track of the movement of damp grain and the prices at which it is moving. I would like the minister and his department to consider the feasibility of granting permits similar to those that were granted to feed mills to purchase feed grains in western Canada.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If there is some novel idea with respect to this matter that would be useful, without giving a larger share of the available market to some producers at the expense of others, I would be very interested in having the hon. member pass that information to us.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs whom I should like to welcome back to Canada. Could the minister tell us whether the position papers upon which certain academics were invited to comment in connection with a reassessment of Canada's foreign policy can be made available to members of the external affairs committee of this house?


Mitchell William Sharp: I see no objection, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, if any members of the house would like to have copies I would be glad to supply them on request.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has there been any change in government policy since the present ministry was formed in connection with the admission of refugees from communist countries seeking political asylum?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for a statement of policy and I suggest this is not in order during the question period.


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I directed this question to the Prime Minister some weeks ago and he suggested I should ask it of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I believe it is of some
January 20, 1SE9

Inquiries of the Ministry urgency. It could be answered simply by a "yes" or "no".


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to answer "yes" or "no" I might allow the question.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING PRESENTATION OF ROYAL COMMISSION REPORT

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State or the appropriate minister. Could the hon. gentleman advise the house when the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women will be available? It appears to me that although spokesmen for many women throughout the country have given some indication of the existing inequalities which affect their lives, the evidence includes many submissions which affect all facets of Canadian life involving men, women and children.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to inquire into this matter and report to the house.



COMMUNICATIONS


Gérard Pelletier: May I take this opportunity to reply to a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Broadview. I think I should state the following on behalf of the Postmaster General, who is still indisposed.
No brief, by or on behalf of the government, has been filed with the Canadian Transport Commission in connection with Bell Canada's application for approval of certain tariff adjustments. The commission is a quasi-judicial body with the power to make decisions on applications of this nature, pursuant to legislation passed by this parliament. In making its decisions the commission is obliged to ensure that all tolls shall be just and reasonable, and has the power to obtain such information as it deems necessary for these purposes.
It is my understanding that several parties have filed briefs in opposition to the Bell application and that these parties may be heard as well as the company.
Beyond this, the Governor in Council has specific optional powers and responsibilities provided for in legislation. These powers

include the ability to vary the commission's decisions and to handle appeals. If, after the commission has determined this particular case, it should develop that government initiative is desirable, hon. members can rest assured it will be fully considered and appropriate action taken.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Mr. Melvin McOuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of the Crown who answers to parliament for the operation of the Atlantic Development Board. In view of the fact that the term of office of the present chairman of the board expires on Friday of this week, and since under the act he is not eligible for reappointment, can the minister tell the house whether a decision has been made with regard to a new appointment and, if so, who the new chairman is to be?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, no one has been appointed to replace him. That matter will be discussed at the cabinet meeting this week.



OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has returned from his far-flung foreign adventures, is it his intention to drop the regional desk system which has been described by one Liberal backbencher as a high class patronage system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: May I ask what is wrong with that question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I can see many things wrong with that question. First of all, I do not think the hon. member is referring to a matter which is under the administrative responsibility of the Prime Minister. I have serious doubts about its being in order. However, if the hon. member thinks it is urgent and wishes to attempt to place it on the order paper, I might have a closer look at it then.
January 20, 1969
449!



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is tor the Minister of Forestry and Rural Development. In the light of all the submissions received by western Ontario members from municipalities in connection with the cut-off applied to ARDA funds for drainage, does the minister intend to hold further negotiations with the provinces in an effort to alleviate the present difficulties produced by the lack of assurance that further funds will be provided by the federal government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as you know, under the ARDA program the provinces make recommendations to the federal government which approves them.
With regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. member, I shall look into the matter; I might be able to give more information to the house sometime later on.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Could the minister not assure these people that at least the original commitment of a five-year period given to the provinces in this respect-I believe there is one more year to go-will be respected?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to my mind it would not be wise to give at this time an assurance with regard to something I am not fully familiar with.
I shall look into the matter and within the next few days I will probably be able to give a more complete reply to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: My question is to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seeming conflict between the statement made last week by the Prime Minister and the statement made by Chief Awolowo that there would be no negotiation in the absence of certain preconditions, can the right hon. gentleman clear up the position of the Nigerian government in connection

Inquiries of the Ministry with the situation in terms of his owr announcement last week?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to attempt to do so. I believe the confusion which arose in the understanding of some members of the opposition derived from the fact that Chief Awolowo did give a commitment to certain heads of delegations in London that he would meet while in London, without any conditions, representatives of the Biafran regime. The further statement to which reference has been made was relevant to meetings which might be held at some future time back in Nigeria or elsewhere. The chief was stating that while in London he would be prepared to meet, without any preconditions, the representatives of the Biafran regime. In the event, the representatives of that regime refused to meet with him at that time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Are we to
understand that Chief Awolowo attached a fuse to his commitment at that time? Now that the Canadian representatives have been talking with Biafran officials I wonder whether they are in fact only considering the possibility of cease-fire discussions or whether they have attempted to clear up some of the communications difficulties which have existed with regard to possible daytime relief operations in that part of Africa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did the hon. member ask whether he had attached a fuse? I am afraid I do not see the significance of that question.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As to the second part of the question with regard to the possibility of daylight relief operations in Biafra, have discussions been held?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position as we learned it in London was the same as we have reported to the house on previous occasions. The Nigerian authorities have agreed to allow daylight relief flights to go through but the Biafran authorities refuse to contemplate such flights.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister aware of the lengthy statement that has been made by Colonel Ojukwu and gentlemen of this kind, and has he not received confirmation of the statement from the Biafran authorities in London?
January 20, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry BIAFRA-CURTAILMENT OF ARMS SHIPMENTS NIGERIA
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert): Mr. Speaker, in connection with the matter we are discussing, may I ask what representations, if any, the Prime Minister made to the British government in connection with curtailing the shipment of arms to Nigeria as a step toward a cease-fire?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I told the British Prime Minister and the British minister of foreign and commonwealth relations what I had said in the house here, that Canada felt it was a mistake for any country to ship arms to this theatre of war. To this I received the answer that the British government has given, I believe, on other occasions; that if they were to agree to any official cessation of arms shipments this would not preclude arms smuggling or arms running, which goes on now. The result of such cessation would perhaps be only to have the unofficial suppliers of arms to Biafra continue shipments, thus piling up arms there.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in connection with a subject discussed earlier on motions, whether he will consider referring the question of the exchange of representatives with the Vatican to the external affairs committee?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has no objection if this matter is contained in the terms of reference of the committee.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: I was
beginning to worry, Mr. Speaker, in case I had undergone some strange metamorphosis which had possibly rendered me invisible. I have a question for the Acting Postmaster General. Can the acting minister explain to the house why the cheapest form of mail delivery, the post office box, has been doubled in price while the more expensive form of mail delivery to residential letterboxes and rural route boxes pays only the additional postage that is required under the new rates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not only visible but also audible, and he should place his question on the order paper in order to make it readable.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: the second reading and reference to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs of Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the laws governing the admissibility of evidence are of vital importance in the administration of justice. Therefore it is important that these laws and rules of procedure themselves be vital. The provisions contained in the Canada Evidence Act and the evidentiary provisions scattered throughout other statutes of Canada are merely the tip of the iceberg. Canada inherited most of its laws of evidence from the common law of 19th century England, and as a result of a combination of factors, including the doctrine that the courts generally consider themselves bound by prior decisions, by precedent, and that their function is to interpret and apply the law rather than to make it, the general law of evidence in this country has tended to remain as frozen as the iceberg, while the substantive civil and criminal law has been developed largely by statute to keep in pace with changing social conditions.
This year I am initiating a general overhaul of the Canada Evidence Act which I hope will result in major reforms to that statute. In the course of that review I hope to consider whether the broad ends of justice might not better be served by a re-examination of the provisions regarding competence and compellability of witnesses as between husband and wife which are contained in section 4 of the act, whether the law of evidence dealing with confidentiality of communications or privileged communications deserves further examination, and whether accused persons who testify in their own defence should be protected from disclosure of prior convictions in some such way as they are under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898 of the United Kingdom. In short, there are a good many areas of evidence, particularly in the realm of self-incrimination, to which I believe we have
January 20, 19S9

to devote a full review of the law based on modern principles.
In the meantime the scope of this particular bill is limited to certain amendments to the Canada Evidence Act which I think ought not to be delayed. The most significant of these I propose to outline very briefly without, I hope, trespassing on the rules of the house.
The bill is designed to remove a completely awkward, rigid and unnecessary limitation in relation to the calling of expert witnesses. The present section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act provides that a party to a legal proceeding may call up to five expert witnesses without obtaining leave of the court. The effect of subsection 2 of this section is that, no matter what the justice of the situation requ res as the trial develops, a party is absolutely precluded from exceeding the limit of five expert witnesses if he has not taken the precaution of getting the leave of the court before he called the very first witness. This bill proposes that that limiting subsection 2 be repealed completely. The position will then be that a party will be able to call more than five expert witnesses if he appeals to the court's discretion at any time during the trial.
The bill is also designed to assist the courts in reaching the truth by removing an obvious impediment in the way of a proper assessment of the credibility of witnesses. At present a party who produces a witness is not permitted to prove that the witness had previously made a written or oral statement inconsistent with the testimony that he is giving the court unless that witness, in the opinion of the court, upon the application of the party who has introduced the witness' testimony, is adjudged adverse.
For the benefit of those who do not practice law as a profession, or did not do so before entering the house, I should mention that the word "adverse" here means that a witness has a hostile animus, or a hostile bearing or intent, toward the party who calls him and is not prepared to give his evidence fairly, or with the appropriate desire to tell the truth.
The defect in the present law is that the courts have generally held that in deciding whether or not the witness is adverse they are not entitled to consider any previous statements made by the witness. They have restricted themselves to considering such matters as the demeanour of the witness, the way he is testifying in the court, and so on. The indefensible result of all this is that the highly polished witness, the highly polished prevaricator, frequently dazzles the court into
29180-2E4
Canada Evidence Act
deciding that there is absolutely no justification for holding that he is adverse.


Gerald William Baldwin: We see that sort of thing here in the house.


John Napier Turner: January 20, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
subject to the ordinary search and seizure provisions contained in section 429 of the Criminal Code. The amendment proposed in this bill will authorize search and seizure, provided the warrant is expressly endorsed as not being limited by this section.
Another significant amendment is designed to unfetter the law from some of the unrealistic technicalities which have resulted from the hearsay rule. Traditionally, the general rule has been that assertions of a fact or opinion can only be presented by the person or witness having direct knowledge of that fact in order that the soundness of the presentation and the credibil.ty of the witness can be tested by the court and the adverse party by way of cross-examination. I have stated the general rule broadly in layman's terms and I hope that my definition will meet with the approval of learned counsel in this chamber. There are many exceptions to it which grew up under the common law or were created by statute, and this would provide another exception to the hearsay rule.
A few years ago in England it was held that the court has no power to create or recognize further exceptions to the hearsay rule. This decision, which resulted in legislation in 1965 in England, has been followed in at least two reported cases in Canada. It is therefore apparent that the law in this country has fallen far behind the major changes which the computer age has brought to business methods.
Frequently records are kept either entirely or almost entirely by mechanical means, and in such cases it may be difficult and perhaps impossible to produce a witness to testify to the facts of a particular case, as distinct from testifying about the mechanical system under which transactions or events are recorded. Even in the case of records kept manually it is frequently impossible to trace the person, assuming he is still alive, who made the entries originally in the business records. A useful source of evidence is thereby excluded from the courts. It is little wonder that intelligent laymen conclude that, far from being blind, the goddess of justice is looking the wrong way.
I consider that, in general, the law of evidence should be moving away from the rigid rules of admissibility toward assessment of the cogency of logically relevant facts. If the facts are relevant, what is the best way to introduce those facts without there being any unfairness to either side? Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, this bill would, subject to certain

safeguards, render business records as defined in the bill generally admissible and would entrust the courts with the discretion of assessing the probative value of those documents.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the bill provides also a minor but useful amendment which it is hoped will avoid the present confusion and uncertainty that arises where an affidavit on a purely provincial matter is taken in the form provided by the Canada Evidence Act.
The only feature which these amendments have in common is that they would modernize the law by removing outdated, awkward and unjustifiable impediments to the full and convenient disclosure of relevant facts in legal proceedings. I emphasize again that these are only first steps in dealing with the many problems in the field of the law of evidence which I will be considering in the review I have discussed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, under the new rules we are really discussing a bill which, after the second reading stage, will go to a standing committee to be examined. In that committee we shall have the opportunity to study the proposed changes. I thank the minister for outlining briefly the contents of the bill which are to be studied in committee.
The minister may have some reason for saying a second time that, "I will do certain things in future, one of them being that I shall review the Canada Evidence Act." He has made similar remarks about the Criminal Code. From my reading of a certain article in Maclean's it is evident what changes he contemplates making in the Criminal Code. The changes in the Canada Evidence Act in many ways are analogous to the proposed changes in the code. It seems to me that the best procedure would have been to allow the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to examine the proposed changes in order that the entire Canada Evidence Act could be considered.
Unless the minister has not disclosed everything he ought to disclose I fail to see, after having heard his speech, what the urgency is in bringing about these changes. One amendment deals with hostile witnesses. I will not repeat the minister's definition of a hostile witness, nor will I repeat in what circumstances the court can rule a witness hostile. Yet what will the proposed amendment really do? I think we should look at it carefully. Certainly it will not help the accused. Will it
January 20, 1969

not help the Crown? I am only asking these questions and not prejudging the issue.


John Napier Turner: The amendment will help both sides.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I shall discuss that in a moment. As I say, we ought to look carefully at the amendment since in my view it will make the Crown, which already is powerful, more powerful at the expense of the accused. It is well known that in some criminal cases before the courts the accused tenders no evidence. The onus is on the Crown. The defence counsel cross-examines the Crown witnesses and if the Crown has not discharged the onus and established a prima facie case, out goes the charge. Who is really concerned and worried about this? Has the minister had submissions from the local Attorneys General of the various provinces? Has somebody in his department become concerned about prosecutions they will not be able to win because of some weakness?
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Maybe there are some pending now.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Maybe there are some pending now, as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said, and I would not be a bit surprised.


John Napier Turner: The Canadian Bar Association.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I know the Canadian Bar Association went a long way. I am not criticizing it, but wait until we come to some of the other amendments. If one happens to be a corporate lawyer one looks at it differently from a Crown counsel. I am not saying that either attitude, in the field of philosophy or of jurisprudence, is right. It is all right for the minister to refer to the Canadian Bar Association, but I am not always complimentary to the associations to which I belong. I do not know if my friends to the left would agree with me but sometimes that association gets a little close to being a closed shop.
I am a little concerned about what will be done after the preliminary hearing of a criminal indictable offence. The police have a very good memory. But in the heat of a trial in the high court, when emotions get a little high, the truth comes out and it is discovered that the Crown has not got as good a case as originally wallpapered. As a result what they want to do is ask whether the witness did not
29180-284J
Canada Evidence Act
make such and such a statement, and then probably depend on the definition of a hostile witness.
A case may involve prosecution by a layman. We have seen laymen with great imaginations. I remember one case where a lady had been charged with causing a disturbance because she and a boy friend had been a little noisy after taking some liquor in a tent along: the Assiniboia river. The question came up-whether or not it was a disturbance and in giving his judgment the judge said, "I do not think the complainant was so worried about what she heard and saw as she was about what she did not hear and did not see." It may be that changing this section in this regard is not all that altruistic and commendable. Once again it is building an all-powerful state, an all-powerful Crown against a bankrupt accused. Most of the people who are charged with indictable offences do not belong to the affluent or just society.
The next question I am concerned about is the giving of evidence by affidavit in cases of banking and other financial institutions. I hope the committee will take a sincere look at this amendment. The clause reads:
Where a cheque has been drawn on any financial institution or branch thereof by any person, an affidavit of the manager or accountant of the financial institution or branch, sworn before any commissioner ... shall be received as prima facie evidence-
I am always a little concerned about affidavit evidence. I always like to see the right to test the truth retained. The art of crossexamination is testing the truth.
We have all seen affidavits in civil matters.. A client goes to a lawyer and completes an affidavit. Then another lawyer draws up an affidavit on the other side of the issue, and one wonders whether the two situations described are identical. The only way to get the right information is to examine carefully the terms of the affidavits, and to do that you might as well examine the persons who have sworn the affidavits. I want to make certain that when changes like this are brought in the right to test the truth will remain so that we can have conformity with the truth and fully verify the indisputable facts. We want honesty, integrity and truthfulness based on recorded information.
The minister may say that banks do not: make mistakes. I wish to give an illustration. Two people with identical names were living in the same district. One had $12,000 in a certain bank. I am not going to name the

January 20, 1369
Canada Evidence Act
bank because I do not want to spoil their business, but the bank was negligent. The second fellow with the same name had an account in the same bank with $21 in it. The fellow with $21 died. His will was probated. Probably the signatures of the two men were never compared in the bank. The estate got the $12,000 and the fellow still alive was left with only $21. He had not written any cheques for a number of years, but shortly after this occurrence he decided to return to Scotland and wanted to draw out some money for his trip. He then found he had only $21 in his account instead of $12,000. The mistake had been made by the bank. The conclusion I am drawing is that these great bankers can also make mistakes. Only under cross-examination can such errors be pointed out to a judge or jury, and that is why I am a little concerned about evidence going in by affidavit.
We know that officers of a company can refer to documents. That is the law today. A responsible officer of a company can give certain facts from reviewing certain even hearsay documents and have them admitted either in a criminal or civil case. There are no problems in that regard.
In his speech the minister threw out these amendments to us and made it sound like the proposed changes were coming from heaven. I thought the Crown might have gone a little farther to help out the subject.
I want to refer to a particular case, and I have never been quite sure whether the Exchequer Court has followed the decision laid down. It is the case of the City of Saint John v. Irving Oil Company Limited. What is it all about? It is very important in regard to the law of evidence. The case deals with the expropriation of land.


John Napier Turner: What is the citation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It is 1966 Canada Supreme Court Reports, at page 592. You will find it down at the bottom of the page. What is this all about? In order to value land that is expropriated you retain expert appraisers to come up with a value. They go out and talk to A, B, C, D and E about sales of similar land in the area under similar circumstances and of similar commercial value. From those discussions they arrive at an opinion as to what the land is worth.
In the last court case I had I was challenged on the ground that although the opinion evidence was admissible it could be disregarded

because unless I called A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H-all these people-it would become straight hearsay. But fortunately the judge in that case had made a decision on this matter previously. That is why I am always thankful for the Supreme Court of Canada. The higher the court you go to, the more just it becomes. The judgment says:
The nature of the source upon which such an opinion is based cannot, in my view, nave any effect on the admissibility of the opinion itself. Any frailties which may be alleged concerning the information upon which the opinion was founded are in my view only relevant in assessing the weight to be attached to that opinion, and in the present case this was entirely a question for the arbitrators and not one upon which the Appeal Division could properly rest its decision.
This court really said, "Look, arbitrators and other courts have based their findings on valuations on opinions based on hearsay evidence. They have not scrutinized the hearsay evidence and examined and measured the weight of the opinion evidence for it to become admissible. That may seem quite a mouthful but basically it boils down to this, that I do not want to see that in the statutes. I read this opinion to the judge before whom I appeared and he then became silent. There is nothing worse to a counsel than a judge becoming silent. You do not know whether he is with you, and the final judgment may not be as good as your client anticipates.
Surely in a day when the Crown is reaching out with stronger tentacles to expropriate land for various reasons, a poor subject who has only a little piece of property and has to hire appraisers should not be put to the cost of calling as witnesses all the people who gave various opinions to the appraisers. If someone had an expert who had examined 110 sales in order to come to an opinion on a certain problem he might think it necessary to call all those people. If the Crown were really concerned-and I am sure the Department of Justice is aware of this situation- here is a case where the Crown could move in to help the subject. There is talk about waiving the hearsay rule. Here is one field in respect of which the Canada Evidence Act should be reviewed. I will ask the minister a question before the committee. I understand that ministers become witnesses now. It is nice to find out some of these things.
* (4:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: Would you consider me a hostile witness?
January 20, 19S9


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No. You are one of the
ministers who answer questions frankly. This is a case in which the hearsay rule is being set aside. The minister could have gone farther.
Let us take another matter which has bothered lawyers for a long time. A case either is or soon will be before the courts involving a fellow who devised a very ingenious plan to get rich by running a country elevator-of course quotas are low these days-and issuing cash tickets in the name of farmers who never brought in any grain at all. If the farmer did not turn up he then forged the farmer's name. These farmers are being called to give evidence that they did not deliver grain. Many of them do not want to appear. This question has been raised by some criminal lawyers. People who give evidence can incriminate themselves if they do not have the protection of the Canada Evidence Act. The farmer might get up on the stand and say that he met the elevator man on Wednesday, that they were a little dry and wanted to get a bottle of whisky from the liquor store but did not have any money because the government is not increasing quotas, so they devised this plan.
The farmer wants to come in and clear his soul even if he does not clear the elevator man. He might then be charged with conspiracy although he has not made any statement to the elevator man. Basically he is home free while the elevator man is on the griddle, but as soon as he goes on the stand he becomes concerned. He is not really worried so much about the elevator man but is concerned about making a statement which may put him in the same position as the elevator man. If we look at section 5(2) of the act we see that it says:
(2) Where with respect to any question a witness objects to answer upon the ground that his answer may tend to criminate him, or may tend to establish his liability to a civil proceeding at the instance of the Crown or of any person, and if but for this Act, or the Act of any provincial legislature, the witness would therefore have been excused from answering such question, then although the witness is by reason of this Act, or by reason of such provincial Act, compelled to answer, the answer so given shall not be used or receivable in evidence against him in any criminal trial-
That means in any other criminal trial. Some lawyers have raised this problem. Some judges have also taken the point of view that it refers only to answers to questions. One could get up and say to the magistrate or judge that the witness is about to say something which will likely incriminate him
Canada Evidence Act
because he wants to make a clean breast of it. He is supposed to tell the truth under oath. In such a case I would ask that all the questions asked and answers given in that sequence of facts not be used in any other criminal case against him or in any civil action by the Crown or by anybody else. That would be doing the job. The special crown prosecutor under the drug act takes the position that in respect of every question and every answer one must ask for protection. Some judges have gone along with this. It would be easy to clarify that by pluralizing and referring to questions and answers.
I mentioned the habit of land valuators, in arriving at land values in the case of sales, of going to various people. I think there should be a clearcut provision changing the hearsay rule in this regard along the lines of the very wise decision of Mr. Justice Ritchie in the Supreme Court of Canada. I am sure this is what he meant, but it could be clarified. This would be a good point to make in respect of evidence of people called on behalf of the Crown or the defence.
In respect of the other matters in the bill I do not see very much change. I agree that we are moving into the age of computers and that computers have their place. But I am concerned about whether we can ever get justice without the human element which is not found in a machine that shoots out facts and comes up with decisions. The fact is that the art of cross-examining a witness to determine whether or not facts will hold up is most important. In this way the judge can look at both sides of the fence.
I recall a murder trial where the police officer had an 11-page statement. I mention this example to show how important crossexamination is. He had an 11-page confession of some type by the accused who was charged with the murder of his wife. The 11-page statement was composed of questions asked by the police officer and the answers by the accused. In cross-examination the police officer was asked whether all the questions asked the accused and all the answers were contained in the 11 pages. He said yes. I then asked the police officer whether it was not strange that although he obtained an 11-page statement he did not once ask the accused, "Did you kill your wife?" The police officer told me that he did ask him but he forgot to put it down. One could become a little concerned about something like that. Then I asked him what the answer was. I could not ask that question before a jury but I could do

January 20. 1969
Canada Evidence Act
so at the preliminary hearing because I wanted the worst to come out at that time rather than at the trial. I found that the answer he gave was different from the one he gave at the inquest. Then at the trial by judge and jury he gave me a different answer again. So I had three different answers to a question that was not contained in the statement although the police officer had stated that everything he had asked and the answers thereto were contained in that statement. This was an answer that was so important he could not forget it and yet he gave three different answers. So when you take away the art of cross-examination you take away the purity of justice. I think these things are not done to help the citizen but to speed up and expedite the work of the Crown.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party welcome
the opening statement of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), in particular this statement that it is his intention to have a general overhaul of the Canada Evidence Act in the near future. When one remembers that the recommendations in respect of Bill S-3 originated in 1960 with the criminal law section at the uniformity conference and were re-examined in 1966 one would hope that the Minister of Justice would open up this bill for a general overhaul. I would have liked the Minister of Justice to tell the house that he had set up a law reform commission to study all the laws on the Canadian statute books, and that it would be a standing commission composed of experts not only in the law but in other related fields so that Canadian law could be updated.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The best example in that regard is the existence in Ontario of a law reform commission which examined expropriation procedures in depth with the result that the province recently passed the new Expropriation Act of Ontario. But we are dragging our feet even on expropriation matters in the federal field. I hope that the Minister of Justice will not only initiate a general overhaul of the Canada Evidence Act but will also set up a law reform commission to study all federal statutes and bring forth measures to update those which need revision.
It was rather pleasant to hear the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) refer to the Minister of Justice as a gentleman, which means that the minister will not be considered a hostile witness when he

appears before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This probably has relation to the statement by Miss LaMarsh that she considers the present Minister of Justice to be a man who fits well in the establishment. I hope he will go beyond that and become one of the avant-garde in making changes in the criminal law.
I was very disappointed that the minister did not incorporate in the omnibus bill the principle of the bill I introduced in respect of abolishing corporal punishment. I have high hopes that he will bring forth another measure after that bill has been disposed of which will incorporate some of the other new changes most Canadians have in mind.
Bill S-3 has five main divisions. The minister has dealt generally but rather succinctly and perceptively with these different divisions. The first is the repeal of subsection 2 of section 7 of the Canada Evidence Act which, as he said, will do away with the necessity of counsel bringing a motion at the commencement of a case for permission to call more than five expert witnesses. As the law will now stand, discretion will be given to the presiding judge. One wonders whether such discretion will have to be exercised at the commencement of or during the trial.


John Napier Turner: At any time.


John Gilbert: The minister says at any time during the trial. The question arises, why should the discretion reside with the presiding judge? Why should not counsel for both sides have the opportunity to call as many expert witnesses as they require? One can appreciate the problem when a case may be weak as it develops and counsel for one side might decide to call an expert witness. This would place the presiding judge in a rather difficult position in ruling whether he should be permitted to call another expert witness, more especially after having heard a good part of the evidence. I ask the Minister of Justice to reflect on some of these problems in respect of expert witnesses.
The second division the minister dealt with involves adverse witnesses. The key to this is that witnesses can be cross-examined in regard to statements in writing they have previously given. What is the applicability of this particular measure? In criminal cases there are statements made by the accused. One would hope that they are voluntary statements, and the testing that point is done in a trial within a trial called a voir dire. On such
January 20, 1969

occasions Crown counsel presents a statement to the accused and asks him to identify his signature.
Again, in determining the voluntary nature of a statement, where does the written aspect come in. It would have to come in with regard to witnesses in a particular criminal case, be they Crown of defence witnesses. In any case I cannot recall the Crown having its witnesses sign statements that they give to police officers. It may be that this is the case in other jurisdictions, but in Toronto I cannot recall detectives requiring crown witnesses to sign statements. One wonders whether this is to be the commencement of a practice by detectives to ask witnesses to a case to sign the statements they have given for the possible purpose of treating them as adverse witnesses if something goes wrong at the trial. Perhaps the minister would look into this.
Another aspect with regard to written statements might arise in negligence cases where you have insurance adjusters interviewing witnesses. If an adjuster speaks to a witness, reduces what he says to a written statement and asks the witness to sign it, one would hope that this type of statement would not be acceptable. Many Canadians are not apprised of the status of insurance adjusters, and we may be placing ourselves in the position of strengthening the position of adjusters. In an advanced country like Canada one would hope that we would eventually get rid of all negligence cases in the courts by taking a forward look and adopting the kind of legislation the province of Saskatchewan has in respect of motor vehicle cases. I ask the minister to be very wary about written statements produced by insurance adjusters.
The third area covered by the minister had reference to affidavit evidence in respect of copies of entries in books of record kept in any financial institution. So far as legal proceedings are concerned, these would be received as prima facie evidence. One appreciates that banks and other financial institutions are so busy these days that they are not anxious to send their bank managers to court to prove a signature on a cheque or any other document. In the past the law has been that banks, by filing an affidavit of the appropriate person, could provide prima facie evidence. This is now being extended to cover financial institutions, the test being that they are institutions which accept money deposits. I think this is a good step forward. There is
Canada Evidence Act
no reason that certain officials of these institutions should be put to the bother of attending in court to give this kind of evidence in view of the fact that it is only prima facie evidence. It would allay some of the fears expressed by the hon. member for Calgary North on this problem if he would consider that it is only prima facie evidence. If other evidence comes forth which rebuts the affidavit evidence, that evidence does not stand in a strong position.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The fourth aspect of this bill covered by the minister is new. It is intended to facilitate proof of matters contained in records made in the usual and ordinary course of business. Again this seems reasonable when one realizes that we are in the age of the computer and other modern business techniques, including microfilming, recordings and so on.
I think we should update our laws in respect of this type of evidence. As the minister said, one has to look at the probative value of any evidence. Surely we should be up to date with regard to the tendering of such evidence and should not waste a great deal of time on the question of proof, which at times is very difficult. This matter is in the area of statutory declarations. The bill is intended to make uniform a statutory declaration which would remove any doubt about whether the form of the statutory declaration is in conformity with the Canada Evidence Act or any provincial statute. I think this is a step forward.
At one of our committees-I think it was the committee on banking and commerce- the legal representative said that these five areas are those in which the government considers we should take action now. I am inclined to agree with him. I was rather impressed when the minister said there is a great deal of in-depth study to be carried out with regard to problems as between husband and wife and confidential relationships between solicitor and client, accountant and client and doctor and patient. This also applies to evidence given by an accused in other cases. If we embrace all these things-


Gerald William Baldwin: What about the member of parliament and his constituent?


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just made a most laudable interjection with regard to the confidentiality that exists as between a constituent and his member of parliament. I am sure the minister will take that matter into account, especially having regard to the hon. member who asked the question.

January 20, 1969
Canada Evidence Act


John Napier Turner: The new
politics is an open book; there is nothing confidential.


John Gilbert: The minister has said that the new politics is an open book. If it is an open book, and we apply the test of the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the Commonwealth conference, every page would appear to be blank. These are some of the matters that I hope the Minister of Justice will take into consideration in the general overhaul of the Canada Evidence Act. More important, I hope he will set up a law reform commission to study the law in all its facets, and will bring forth a freshness and updating such as in his best moments he is capable of doing.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to speak at length on Bill No. S-3. I would rather get at once at the heart of the matter and make pertinent remarks, in order not to prolong the debate unduly.
Mr. Speaker, the Evidence Act was enacted 75 years ago and it has never been amended since. Several members in the other place expressed dissatisfaction when the present bill was considered by the committee on banking and commerce. Why has the legislation not been adapted to our evolving society over the years?
Conditions under which justice is applied are certainly not the same in 1969 as they were in 1893. A great many things and ideas have changed since. To be just a legislation must be able to adapt to various circumstances. It must take into account the whole situation, without omitting anything. It is the price we have to pay for a sound application of justice.
We had to wait 75 years before at last daring to change this legislation, to reconsider it and to adapt it, when any jurist knows that it is outmoded and a hindrance to the sound and efficient application of justice.
Before studying the present bill, I wish to tell the minister that we are dissatisfied it took so long. Of course, he is not entirely responsible for the delay since he has not always been Minister of Justice, but I suppose his predecessors cannot boast of having made any efforts to move "the iceberg", as the minister called it a few minutes ago. I think those ministers have been as motionless as the "icebergs" mentioned by the minister.

It is difficult for us, as it is for Canadians, to understand that such a situation could exist. We would be very happy if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), whom we have always considered as a progressive man, who looks forward and not backward, would explain the situation to us and would tell us why we must be satisfied today with amending the Evidence Act-and very limited amendment indeed-instead of changing entirely such an important legislation, on which rests in a way the efficient administration of justice.
The minister is aware, no doubt, that present social and technical conditions are not what they were in 1893 and that a complete review of the Evidence Act would certainly help improve the efficiency of our judicial system.
I therefore want him to give us the assurance that the law as a whole will be reviewed without further delay because we have already waited far too long.
Moreover, I feel, and I dare say, other hon. members feel the same about it, that the administration of justice is so important, that one should not be limited, when it comes to submitting the evidence, by all kinds of red tape. For instance, the act we are now amending, sets a limit on the number of witnesses, as if the full administration of justice could possibly be hampered when trying to set the blame.
Mr. Speaker, the old act did not allow each side more than five witnesses, save by leave of the court or of the judge. That obsolete provision sets limits and I wanted to emphasize the fact.
I am therefore all in favour of the amendment proposed in the present bill which simply removes such limits.
The old act, in my opinion, truly limited the administration of justice.
Clause 2 amending section 9 of the act is another example of the yoke imposed by the act, and it is high time to change and adapt it to our present social and technical conditions, which certainly are different from those of 1893. Until now, as senator Walker put it so well, and I quote:
You could call your first witness thinking that he was your best witness because you have a signed statement from him. But, lo and behold, you find that somebody has got to him in the meantime. (...) And when you call him, he gives an entirely different story from the one he has given in the signed statement. (...) You are taken by surprise, you can appeal to the judge, but nothing can be done.
January 20, 1969

Those are the words of the senator, who has a long experience in this field.
Here therefore is another example of a limitation that justice cannot tolerate unless you want to make of this very justice a matter where money, blackmail and influence rule.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot but agree with the amendment proposed by Bill No. S-3.
In order not to take up too much time, I shall limit myself to making comments on two clauses. As for the others, they too are excellent, especially the one that extends the present law to all financial institutions, and not merely to the banks. We all know how our economic situation has evolved. We trust that it will be recognized that the same goes for our monetary situation and that Creditiste measures will be taken. Here again, we could dwell at length on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and prove that the section to be amended constituted a limitation to the application of justice and its processes. Indeed, I wish to congratulate the honourable minister and the mover of the bill, introduced in the Senate, for their praiseworthy and necsesary initiative. I wish to remind them, before bringing my remarks to a close, that we wish to be assured that, in the near future, the whole Canada Evidence Act will be revised-not only parts of it-to insure better administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, there is another matter, which is related to this one and could even be included in it, which intrigues me a good deal and to which I should like to draw the attention of the house for a minute or so.
I had a question put on the order paper asking the Department of Justice whether it intended to proceed with judiciary "decentralization" with a view to bringing the justiciable closer to the court; I was told in reply that the government was in the process of studying several ways and means which might be adopted with a view to decentralizing further the activities of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
I should like to ask the honourable minister to give us more details on that matter of decentralization of the judiciary administration. I feel that that reply was rather vague and, for that reason, unacceptable. I know he can give us more information on the ways and means through which the Canadian judiciary system could be decentralized. I believe that not only the Canadian Bar Association but all those interested in the administration of justice would be grateful to
Canada Evidence Act
the minister if he was to give us more details with regard to that matter since, at present time-we can come back to this later-the Supreme Court is truly an untouchable body.
Mr. Speaker, I bring my remarks to a close by congratulating the mover; I trust the bill will be adopted after having been studied seriously by the committee.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I make a few comments and ask the minister a question? I do not know whether it is his intention to close the debate. Our position has been adequately put by the hon. and learned member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), the hon. and learned member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) and the hon. and learned member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin).


Robert Jardine McCleave: Learning goes a long way.


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, both here and in London. I would like to think that when we are dealing with questions relating to evidence and the Evidence Act the whole picture will be reviewed. I am sure the minister will recall when, as a law student, he was directed to study "The Art of Cross-examination" by Wrottsley, and later went into the police courts from time to time and saw there the application of the great principles of justice where 95 per cent of the people of Canada meet the criminal law at first instance. I think he will have observed that through the courts and the judges, the magistrates, the judges of the county courts and the judges of the Supreme Court, there are fashioned on the anvil of experience the instruments which we must have and preserve for our system of jurisprudence to ensure that the rights of the citizen come first.
Two of these proposals, one under clause 2 and the other under clause 4, have the effect, I think, either of nullifying or of departing from the rules of practice with relation to evidence which have been incorporated in this country by the application of the British common law and have been the subject of judicial declaration. Merely because they were sound a hundred years ago does not necessarily mean they are sound today. However, it is my experience, after some 40 years in and out of the criminal courts, that a person occupying a judicial position has a better opportunity than anyone else of determining the factors which must be brought to

January 20, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
play in the reinforcement by judicial decision in this country of these two particular rules.
One is that a witness cannot be declared to be hostile unless the judge is satisfied in his own mind that the witness is in fact hostile and adverse, following which he may then be cross-examined. Very sound and practical rules for protecting the rights of the subject have surrounded this principle, which is not a statutory principle but one which has come to us over a great many years of practical application in the courts.
In the second place, I can understand why in our society today people may make declarations in writing, and this may even be extended to cover tape recordings at some time. I do not know whether the interpretation of the word "writing" is wide enough to cover this. I know that it does not have to be a writing signed by the person in question as long as it is something which has been reduced to writing. I throw this out as something that the committee may take up. Would this mean, for example, if a witness made a statement and a police constable or any other person with authority examined the witness and took the statement down in writing, that this would be considered to satisfy the wording in the proposed new clause, "a statement reduced to writing"?
Then there is a statement with regard to oral evidence in respect of a matter received in a legal proceeding involving a record made in the usual and ordinary course of business. If I remember correctly, there was always an additional safeguard inserted in the rules of practice in relation to such evidence that it must be made by a person required in the proper course of his duty to make the entry and reduce it to writing as the record. In other words, this requirement was made so as to safeguard against the possibility of selfserving statements being made by people who are not authorized to make them and to put them in writing. Thus it became part of the record of a business or an institution, as the case may be.
What I say is not to be taken as a reason for these clauses not being passed, but I do point out the very grave dangers which come about when we interfere by statutory amendment with rules of evidence which have proven effective safeguards and which we have used to surround our system of criminal justice over a great many years. I think we should look at it with the greatest care. It
[Mr. Baldwin.!
may well be that because of present jurisprudence these are essential. I am not really uttering it in the form of a caveat.
My final suggestion would be that the minister might take a look at standing order 62 (1) or (2), as the case may be, which provides that a committee may be instructed to consider a bill rather than the bill being introduced and read the first time. This is the sort of practice which could be very useful in relation to matters of this kind.
I recognize that in the past few years there have been problems facing the government in bringing forward various amendments which have been very much required and which we have omitted in the past. But I would suggest that the minister might wish to consider even allowing a draft statute to be sent to the committee under standing order 62, with authorization to the committee to proceed to bring in a bill based on the draft as well as, of course, the government's own recommendations. The committee would then be authorized to call not only for the evidence of department officials but for that of Crown counsel, people from the Attorney General's department, and distinguished counsel whose duty it is to appear for accused people and to maintain the proper perspective between the Crown and the accused. It might well be that, before the minister gets around to bringing in new changes, something of this kind could be done so as to have the benefit of the thinking and knowledge not only of the Crown and the Department of Justice but of people outside who are concerned for professional and sociological reasons to see that our system of justice continues to be what it has been in the past, the best in the world.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks at this point he will close the debate.


John Napier Turner: I rose on that assumption, Mr. Speaker.

My thanks go to those who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. I suggest that it would be more appropriate for me to answer questions before the committee which will be sitting soon, and I hope that the chairman of that committee will be able to convene its members in order to deal with this bill immediately.

I want to say that I appreciate the remarks made by all who have spoken this afternoon.
January 20, 1969

I wish to tell the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) that I am on record as being in favour of a national law reform commission. We are actively moving toward it; I mentioned it in a speech I made during the convocation at Osgoode Hall in Toronto last fall. I agree with the hon. member. I believe we need an objective, independent body constantly reviewing federal law, particularly the Criminal Code. The law of evidence would be a very useful reference to it, although we are proceeding internally as well and have set up a new research division within the Department of Justice so that the justice side of the department can be just as active as the Attorney General's side, in other words, so that the doves can be just as active as the hawks. We are moving along in that way.
I think the whole issue of the administrative law and the judicial review of administrative tribunals mentioned by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) could well become a reference to the law reform commission. When we are thinking of the Ontario law reform commission, it seems to me it is properly independent, but it may be that the Attorney General of the province does not have sufficient powers when it comes to putting references or subject matter before the commission. I will be reviewing the New York State law reform commission, the American Law Institute and, of course, the law reform commission which was set up by the United Kingdom two or three years ago.
I believe there is a further use for a law reform commission for Canada. It is to ensure that the civil law-

The Civil Code is integrated in our federal statutes, as well as the common law, and the law reform commission can compare those two legal systems perhaps more efficiently for the future than for the past.

When we are reviewing the general law, there is a great deal to be said for securing the close co-operation of the provincial Attorneys General. This measure affecting the Canada Evidence Act applies primarily to the criminal law. Both evidentiary rules and procedural rules affecting civil cases are a matter for provincial jurisdiction. There ought to be some harmony in the development of our evidentiary rules, and we have
Canada Evidence Act
discussed this with the department of the Attorney General of Ontario. So perhaps we could embark on some sort of joint study.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs might be given some initiating power in this regard. When the expropriation bill reaches the house, soon, I hope, I intend that it should be referred at an early date to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The committee may call witnesses from across the country, members of the legal profession, representatives of municipalities and planning boards-


John Gilbert: And the victims, too.


John Napier Turner: Well, I
think there are enough defence counsel to take care of them-but the victims, the average citizen, yes, as well.
At the moment I envisage a strenuous time for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. All being well, the bill before us will be submitted to it at five o'clock, as will the omnibus amendments to the Criminal Code which I shall be introducing here on Thursday. Then there are the estimates of the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court amendment bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It
will not have any time for illegal affairs, will it?


John Napier Turner: I should also mention the expropriation bill. The general question of wiretapping has already been referred to the committee. All in all I imagine the members of the committee will be doing a lot of good, constructive work between now and the end of the session. I look forward to my own appearance before the committee as soon as the chairman in his good judgment assembles it. I wish to thank the house for its courtesy this afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.

January 20, 1963
Canada Elections Act NOTICES OF MOTIONS CANADA ELECTIONS ACT



SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPECTING DISFRANCHISEMENT, ARMED SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Paul Sl-Pierre (Coast Chilcotin) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to amend the Canada Elections Act to prevent to a further degree the disfranchisement of numerous citizens who are absent from their residence areas on polling days, and to prevent the Armed Services being singled out as the only professional group whose political choices are made public, by mingling Armed Service ballots with other absentee ballots, and, for those purposes:
(a)	to entitle an elector to vote on polling day for the candidate of his choice who is nominated in his Electoral District, by casting his vote in a polling station or Electoral District other than his own, using an absentee ballot;
(b)	to provide that Armed Services ballots shall henceforth be called absentee ballots and be counted simultaneously with other absentee ballots without, however, altering the present method of balloting by the Armed Services;
(c)	to provide further that members of the Public Services of Canada and their dependents stationed abroad shall be enabled to cast absentee ballots in the manner prescribed for the Armed Services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have just dealt with an amendment to the Canada Evidence Act. The spokesman tor the Creditiste party, the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), pointed out that the Canada Evidence Act had failed to move with the times and had become badly out of date. Essentially, my motion urging changes to the electoral law of Canada says precisely the same thing-that this law has become badly out of date. It is no longer in tune with present day realities and as a result a shockingly large number of Canadians are losing their votes in every election.
I am a little disturbed to find that my motion is the longest on the order paper. I have learned to be afraid of too many words. I recall one case in British Columbia where a senior lawyer was asked by another lawyer whether he should attempt an appeal. The older lawyer inquired: "how long is the judgment?" The younger one replied: "17 folios." The older lawyer then commented: "I don't want to read it; go ahead with an appeal; no man alive can be right for 17 folios."
If my motion is long, however, it is not really complex, and I think I shall be able to show to the satisfaction of this house that it has proven of practical use already in Canadian elections. In the national election just completed, 25 per cent of the eligible
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
voters of Canada did not cast ballots. We have no way of knowing how many of these would have cast their ballots if the advantage of the absentee ballot form had been available to them.
No doubt a great many of them did not vote because they were generally satisfied with the course of affairs in the country. No doubt, too, a good proportion of them did not vote because they have very little use for any of the political parties which came forward. I am not one of those who believe people should be forced to vote. I believe that to absent oneself from the poll is not a privilege but a right, just as it is a right to vote at the polls. I do not favour the Australian system which obliges people to vote on pain of a penalty. Nevertheless, I do not think there can be any doubt that a high proportion of the 25 per cent who did not cast their votes are people who were unable to do so because they were absent from their homes on election day. This is the purpose of an absentee ballot-to accommodate these people.
o (5:00 p.m.)
I might point out that in my own riding of Coast Chilcotin the number who did not vote was 33J per cent, or one-third of the people.


An hon. Member:: Dull election.


Paul St. Pierre: Someone says it was a dull
election. Possibly. It did not seem so to those of us who engaged in it. I would remind hon. members that mine is a large riding devoted mainly to primary production. There are many loggers and fishermen who must be absent from their homes on occasion as a matter of business. As a matter of fact I can give the house a particularly shocking example of the disenfranchisement to which I refer. One of the larger Indian reserves in Canada is situated in the riding of Coast Chilcotin-the Bella Bellas. On the day of the last election there were 410 Indian adults on the voting list and only 176 voted.
The reason for this absenteeism is that the community is entirely dependent for its income on fishing. Both on the day of the election and on the day of the advance poll since this year's major fish run was at Rivers Inlet 100 miles distant from Bella Coola, these Indian people had to be about their business. Because they were about their business they were denied their right to vote. As I say, this is a shocking situation, and I hope we do not go into another election without provision being made for an absentee ballot.
January 20, 1969

Advance polls are of no help or of very little help in this matter. They are open one day only and are usually poorly advertised. In any case we are in the age of the two-week and three-week vacation in many parts of Canada. The British Columbia coast logger or fisherman may well be absent from his home not just for a few days but for three weeks, a month or even two months at a time. Why should such people be deprived of their privilege of casting an absentee ballot?
My constituency is not the worst in Canada in this regard. I am sure my hon. friend, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), where there is a very large proportion of fishermen, would consider his people are very greatly disadvantaged in this matter. Both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are vast expanses of land far, far bigger than the constituency of Coast Chilcotin. I also imagine that Rocky Mountain constituency, which is a long and difficult to negotiate geographical area, must suffer very severely in this connection.
In any case we are not in the age of our ancestors 50 years ago in Canada, or in the hungry thirties when travel was difficult because we could not afford the gas. I imagine that most hon. members who did occasionally beg or borrow a car would remember how gas for it was purchased two bits' worth at a time. The federal election law that requires the voter to present himself at his home polling station is really and genuinely fitted only for the horse and buggy days when men did not move far from their homes in order to work, the days when vacations were unknown and when, except for trains, the only method of travel was the horse and buggy, which did not take one very far from home.
I think it is important to note that the absentee ballot has been used with success in several elections in the province of British Columbia. It is a fairly simple method. An applicant for an absentee ballot must fill in a form at whichever polling station he attends and swear to the information he provides, and the secret ballot is then delivered to his home electoral district. There is also a safe and satisfactory method of counting these ballots. There is also a system of doublechecking to prevent electors from casting two ballots, one in their home district and one in a neighbouring district.
I suppose there have been abuses of this system, because there are abuses in any law, but I have lived in British Columbia since
Canada Elections Act
1945 and have never heard of one single abuse of the absentee balloting system. Those that have occurred have therefore, I think been small in number and not significant to the final vote.
In urging a system of absentee balloting I am fortunate to have the support of a very distinguished Canadian, Mr. Castonguay, who has reported on methods of registration of voters and absentee voting. This report of the representation commission was made in 1988. In his report appears this recommendation:
If the Commonwealth of Australia system of continuous electoral rolls is adopted, I recommend:
(1) That the Australian method of absentee voting, which provides voting facilities for electors who are unable to attending at their own polling place by reason of absence, but able to attend at another polling place located in the state in which they are registered, be applied to federal elections in Canada.
Hon. members may wonder why the motion that I am presenting here does not simply recommend that the government adopt the Castonguay report; certainly that is the evidence and the recommendation of an expert. The reason is that Mr. Castonguay's recommendation is based on the provision that Canada adopt the system of continuous electoral rolls. I am not opposed to that. In fact, I would hope that the committee on privileges and elections will adopt the whole of the Castonguay report. But in his introduction Mr. Castonguay makes this point:
However, it is my belief that the adoption of such a system would prove to be very costly.
My fear is that the committee on privileges and elections may very well be alarmed by the cost involved. Mr. Castonguay does not say exactly how much it would be. However, in rejecting or postponing the adoption of a continuous election roll system for Canada, the committee would also again be rejecting or postponing the absentee ballot. My hope is that in such circumstances the baby will not be thrown out with the bath water and that at least an absentee balloting system similar to that in use in British Columbia, where it has worked very well, will be retained-in short, that there be a compromise. What is a compromise? It is a meeting of minds of reasonable men.
One or two hon. members have expressed an interest in fishing in my constituency. Fortunately I had an experience recently that I think points up splendidly the value of compromise in human affairs. I was fishing for salmon and I caught a 14-incher. which by

January 20, 1969
Canada Elections Act
our system of measurement is an extremely large fish.


Mr. Pringle:: That is between the eyes!


Paul St. Pierre: Yes, between the eyes. Unfortunately I did not weigh it. My wife had a camera and took a black and white picture of it, and the negative alone weighed seven pounds! I was mentioning this to Jim Chambers, the head of the fishermen's union at Powell River, and he said, "What was the size of the fish, Paul? I said, "I would estimate it at about 160 pounds-dressed, that is." Well, Jim said he had a big catch himself. He had been Ashing just off Desolation Sound, near Refuge Cove, which was Arst mapped by Captain George Vancouver of the ship Discovery in 1792. Jim was Ashing very deep and snagged something on the bottom. When he brought it up he found he had snagged the binnacle lamp from Captain George Vancouver's ship Discovery. You can imagine his surprise, Mr. Speaker, when he found the candle in it was still burning.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Now, Jim Chambers and I are reasonable. Reasonable men. We compromised. I took 100 pounds off the Ash and Jim put out the candle. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, compromise is very necessary. We may have to compromise in order to reform our electoral system by 1972. If we cannot implement the recommendations of the entire Castonguay report, at least let us deal with absentee ballots.
Paragraph (b) of the motion in my name
says:
-to provide that armed services ballots shall henceforth be called absentee ballots and be counted simultaneously with other absentee ballots without, however, altering the present method of balloting by the armed services;
Our servicemen who serve in many parts of the world vote under an intricate system which, to the best of my knowledge, in most ways seems to satisfy them. What does not satisfy them, and on this I am inclined to agree with them, is that at present servicemen as members of a professional group are singled out and the way they vote is made public. We are told how many service votes each party gained. We are not told, however, how the doctors or other professional groups in the country voted, and to this extent servicemen have been discriminated against.
Acceptance of my motion would mean that servicemen's votes would be collected as at

present. Their ballots would be treated as other absentee ballots are treated and, instead of coming to a central office here in Ottawa to be counted, with the results of the vote being transmitted to the various polling divisions, would go directly to the chief returning officer of each electoral district in Canada, where the ballots would be mixed with other absentee ballots and counted. It is as simple as that.
Paragraph (c) of the motion seeks to extend to the members of the Public Service of Canada and others serving abroad the polling privileges extended to our armed services. Of course, there is a limit to the number of Canadians living abroad who can participate in an election. After all, 15,000 Canadians live in London alone and we could not reasonably expect to service these people. Many Canadians live in other foreign cities. The members of our diplomatic service, however, are in a different position since we send them abroad as our servants. I think that their votes ought to be collected as we would collect the votes from the armed services, with identical or very similar machinery being used.
It is extremely important to make sure that the votes of our diplomatic representatives are not broken down, as are our armed services votes, in order to reveal party support. No one should know that our overseas personnel voted largely for this party or that party. Our absentee ballots should be entitled to the anonymity that attaches to the votes of all our citizens.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hope the provisions of our electoral act will be revised by 1972 or earlier, if there should be an election earlier, so that those voting through absentee ballots will not be faced with a situation in many areas which is shocking and quite undemocratic. I thank hon. members for their courteous attention.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member who has just spoken for his excellent presentation and his excellent fishing story. In one sense we are all fishermen, since we have all gone fishing for something that is important to us in order that we may sit in this house. Our methods have perhaps been similar to the methods that have been described in some fishing stories we have heard.
The hon. member's notice of motion is welcome and I will not speak at great length on it. I merely wish to bring up one or two
January 20. 1969

points since I know other hon. members wish to speak on this matter. First, I should like to see the principle embodied in the idea behind the absentee ballot extended to those who are crippled, who live in nursing homes or find it difficult to go to the polls.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I realize that the hon. member's notice of motion deals with those who are physically absent from their constituencies on election day. I think it might cover those who can only attend at a polling booth after making tremendous sacrifices and going through great hardships. I will cite a case I am personally familiar with.
Provincial election laws have provided for those people in nursing homes who are elderly and not mobile or in other ways incapacitated to cast their ballots, and in that way provincial laws are ahead of federal laws. That often leads to confusion, since many voters do not think election workers are telling the truth when they say that the provisions of certain provincial electoral acts are not included in the federal election legislation.
Sometimes when a person has driven up to a polling booth and has not been able to alight from the car that person has been approached by an agent of one of our parties and been permitted to vote without leaving the car. While that sort of action may contravene the letter of our electoral legislation it does not contravene its spirit.
I said I would cite a case I was familiar with personally, and I do so now. During my second election campaign I remember one particular voter who was seriously ill and who came to the poll, no doubt to frustrate my attempt to be elected. No one will say that the lady in question was forced to come since I imagine she had been a lifelong adherent of another party and no doubt wanted to nip my political career in the bud. At any rate, she went to the poll and voted in tremendous agony. Shortly thereafter, within hours of voting, the woman had passed away. She could have been given at least a little more life if a ballot had been brought to her sickbed. So I hope that in this parliament we can come to grips with this problem. I think that every parliament during its four-year term should make changes in the Canada Elections Act. I hope this change will be one of them.
Canada Elections Act
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I understand that the hon. member who proposes this motion lived for some time in my area. Therefore he should be familiar with the armed forces problem. Perhaps that problem is not so acute for the Halifax constituencies because there are large numbers of servicemen concerned, but I think the hon. member is right in his general criticism that service voting is too often identifiable. Somebody on a base in Germany may be the only one going to vote in a particular riding in Canada and it does not take much imagination to see which way he voted. Therefore I certainly support those provisions in the hon. member's motion.
I would hope the Department of National Defence would be less sheltering in its attitude to the people in the armed forces. There seems to be some idea that they are to be protected at all costs from political ideas. I think this ghetto approach to the serviceman, not only to make his vote a rather special and different sort of thing but also to make it very difficult for politicians of any kind to bring ideas and discussion to him, is less than commendable in a democratic age.
The last meeting of the national defence and external affairs committee last year will provide useful information with regard to the problem of employees of the Department of National Defence, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce who serve abroad. The problem there is simply to get Canadian ideas and newspapers to these people. Some newspapers do get to them but not all. To give them more participation in general elections some heed should be paid to the evidence given before that meeting.
Those are the few points I wish to add in my most fulsome support for the notice of motion proposed by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin. I simply conclude by saying it should be referred to a committee, together with any other similar subject matter, and I would hope the committee would be generous enough not only to consider the hon. member's motion but to give it a somewhat broader aspect by dealing with those who for physical, medical or health reasons, or for sheer age, find it somewhat difficult to get to the polls on election day.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, aside from being entirely in support of the proposal put forward in the motion of the

January 20, 1369
Canada Elections Act
hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre), I have a particular reason for taking part with some pleasure in this debate. It happens that the hon. member and myself are from the same department of the same newspaper in the same city, Vancouver. We both served in it at one time. No matter how much we may have disagreed in the past and still may disagree on many other matters it is good to think we agree in principle on such an important issue as he has brought forward, the reform of the electoral law of Canada.
This subject is long overdue for action. Over the years members of ail parties, such as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), have taken up this issue at the election committee level and urged that reform take place. For many years it has been the plight of many Canadians to be disenfranchised because of no absentee voting procedure for them.
Naturally reference has been made to the larger constituencies in different parts of Canada, particularly in British Columbia. In the area from which I come, the lower mainland of British Columbia and in particular my constituency of Surrey, there are hundreds if not thousands of industrial workers who are disenfranchised by the lack of absentee bal-lotting every time a federal election is held in the summer. We have hundreds of fishermen in that area, many miners, and many hundreds of loggers who are away from their homes when elections are held. They would like to vote for or against the candidates in their own constituency but they are out of the constituency long before the advance poll is held. As the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin has pointed out, advance polls are of little or no use to many Canadians because they do not have an absentee ballot to use when they are hundreds of miles away from their own polling booths.
The proposals the hon. member has made summarize so well the need for action in this regard that I will conclude what I have to say in about one more minute so that I will not contribute in any way to talking out the motion. I would simply add that the hon. member's point with regard to armed services voting is also very good. As matters stand members of the armed services are the only group of Canadians who are made distinctive at the time of federal elections or, if you prefer, are discriminated against by the fact that their votes are tabulated separately. I am sure

that the principle involved in the hon. member's motion is such that it will commend itself to all members in all parties. I would hope that if the principle is not approved in the house tonight the house could at least agree to send the motion to the appropriate committee as being material requiring action and having the blessing of the members of the house.


André-Gilles Fortin: I should like to comment briefly on this motion from one of our colleagues, to amend the Canada Elections Act.
Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for taking the lead in trying to have the Canada Elections Act amended, although I must tell him that I do not quite share his views. I shall try to set forth my reasons quickly. I wish to point out that some parts of the motion, particularly the last sections, will encourage the fraudulent practices now prevailing in the Armed Forces and among civil servants stationed outside Canada. This motion does not change anything to the way they vote which I think is basically wrong.
Mr. Speaker, so as to bring the discussion back to its true framework and to show how important this matter is, I should like to say first of all that Canadian citizens must have every opportunity to cast their votes. I therefore agree in principle with the hon. member's proposals since it is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the vote. It can be noted by everybody at the time of an election-whether the last election or the previous one-that the rate of absentee voting keeps increasing, for the simple reason that people, because of the government inaction or the people's indifference for governments, have lost any interest whatsoever in public affairs. It can be seen that the number of non-voters keeps increasing from one election to the next. Of course, there may be several reasons for that, but we would be led to discuss political issues, and I do not want to turn this into a political debate, since the matter being looked into is the Elections Act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that the hon. member's attempt has merits per se. We should aim at giving every Canadian citizen a chance to vote if he knows in advance he will be away from his constituency on polling day, since it is in the interest of Canada as a whole to give every Canadian
January 20, 1969

a fair chance, without any patronage, blackmailing or bribery, to cast a free vote so that this house may be made up of free men.
However, Mr. Speaker, to reach that point any possible fraud should be prevented. I maintain that the present Elections Act has been obsolete for a long time and does not meet Canada's requirements. I would say, for instance, that in the Shefford riding, in 1965, the Creditistes lost an election not because the people were less creditistes-in fact, they were more inclined that way-but because the votes of the armed forces upset the results of the vote. I was present when the judicial recount took place in order to assist my colleague, the present member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau).
Four things have to be considered.
First, the members of the armed forces do not vote at the same time as the rest of the Canadian citizens; secondly, they do not use the same ballot; thirdly, they have no control over their ballot and fourthly, they are ill-informed as to what is going on in their respective ridings and in Canada generally.
Therefore, not only do the armed forces control the boys "left, right, left, right, left, right" as was said earlier by my colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte), when a similar question was being discussed-but also, in some way, the military vote. I think that we have here a first rate instance of fraud.
On several occasions, Mr. Speaker, we asked the minister responsible for the armed forces-the Minister of National Defence-to investigate the matter very thoroughly. I sit on the committee on privileges and elections and I should like the sponsor of this motion to pass on my request to the minister-asking him to inquire on the military vote and to report to the committee so that we may study extensively and circumscribe this problem which, in my opinion, makes the military vote more or less just, more or less fair.
Mr. Speaker, the motion under consideration concerns first the people who are absent from their riding on polling day.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I agree entirely with that part of the motion since the present system does not make it as easy as possible for those who are called away from their own riding to vote on election day. Since Canada as a whole needs those votes, the polls must not be faked, but honest. I can only approve the mover on that point and congratulate him. I think the committee 29180-285
Canada Elections Act
will be pleased to examine the motion, because, according to me, it will bring some order into the present electoral system.
The second part of the motion deals with the armed forces. Here, I do not agree at all, Mr. Speaker, when we are told, for instance, and I quote:
b) to provide that armed services ballots shall henceforth be called absentee ballots and be counted simultaneously with other absentee ballots-
Up to there I agree, but I do not any longer when the motion states, and I quote:
-without, however, altering the present method of balloting used by the armed services-
The sponsor takes a step forward and two backward. If he approves the last part of that sentence, he is acting like a crayfish. A while ago, he talked eloquently about fish, I will now speak to him about crayfish. A crayfish is a shell-fish which moves a step forward and two backward; that is how the Liberal government is acting.
This motion, Mr. Speaker, shows that the present electoral system is accepted and that no change whatever is made to it. There is fraud not necessarily because the members of the armed forces are not in their constituency, since this would be working from a false principle. Fraud is due to the balloting system used by the armed forces.
I was present at the judicial recount for Shefford and Sherbrooke and I noted that we lost those two constituencies because the vote was fraudulent and not because people did not vote for the Creditistes.
What did I find out? That scores of ballots bore the same signature. Indeed, no one can make me believe that Canadian soliders have all the same signature. I recognize that strict discipline is enforced in our armed forces but surely not to that extent.
Secondly, many of those votes are in the same handwriting. Thirdly, I have noticed- and I can find it hard to understand-that very few servicemen of the Lotbiniere constituency stationed abroad and known to me before they left, when I was not yet a member of parliament, voted for me whereas I know very well that they supported the Ral-liement Creditiste before I did.
Now, if I add the number of servicemen outside Canada supporting the Ralliement Creditiste to the number of votes I got, Mr. Speaker, I get an impossible figure. Either these people have died or they were off their heads when they voted for the Liberal government. So, something did happen.

January 20, 1969
Canada Elections Act
That is the information I want to get and that is exactly the information the minister refuses to disclose. Consequently, this motion will bring about no change at all if the said passage is maintained, and I quote:
-without, however, altering the present method of balloting by the armed forces-
We must change this procedure, Mr. Speaker. I urge the sponsor of this motion to change that sentence to read.
-however, by altering the present method of balloting by the armed forces-
Then, he would be able to tell between a man who goes forward and a crayfish.
Mr. Speaker, I said I would be brief and I shall be.
The third part of the motion concerns the members of the public service who are posted abroad.
Here again, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand anything. I quote the relevant part:
-that members of the public services of Canada and their dependents stationed abroad shall be enabled to cast absentee ballots in the manner prescribed for the armed services-
There is not only too much cheating in the method of balloting used by the Canadian armed forces, but the situation would be even worse if the members of the Public Service posted outside Canada were treated in the same manner.
Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that. I would like our Elections Act to be completely revised, so that it be adapted to our modern life. We are clever enough to give a free vote. Mr. Speaker, when I consider the number of impersonations at each election, I am flabbergasted and I cannot tolerate such a situation. One knows that money is circulating in all constituencies in Canada during an election campaign, that there is blackmailing and that refrigerators, electric stoves, crayfish, in short, all you can think of, are offered to people. One also knows that advertising which says the same thing over and over again without being controlled, leads people astray in many cases. I do not speak necessarily about Liberals or Conservatives; I mean that our electoral system is basically rotten.
Mr. Speaker, these are so many methods we must expel from present electoral system. Our governments will be much better because they will be more free, more legitimate, more desired and not imposed. That is the reason why so many voters are absent: our governments are not wanted.
When I organized the campaign for my party on the occasion of the by-election in the Hull constituency, the member of parliament was Mr. Caron. At that moment, I realized that there were more undecided people, more people who did not vote. Why? We cannot explain it.
Mr. Speaker, the mover of the motion said, a few moments ago, that 33 per cent of his constituents did not vote. Now, if the Liberal party. The New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative party and the Rallie-ment Creditiste have been unable to bring those electors to vote, it is because they are utterly disgusted by what is going on in the political field-and I can but approve on the main of this-because of the out-ofdate and unsatisfactory electoral methods used in Canada, a free country. However, it is possible that they are not public-minded, and we must react against this. I admire the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he spoke about the permanent democratic participation as a means of getting the people involved in what is happening in this country.
Secondly, they should be given every possible chance, every opportunity to vote, and to do so honestly.
Mr. Speaker, I regret, of course, that everything cannot be put together, that everything cannot come within one motion, and I regret that no mention is made of identity cards, as a means to avoid such a fraud.
I regret also that there is no mention- still in the same field-of an amendment concerning the manner of voting for members of the armed forces.
I also regret that no mention is made of civil servants posted abroad, so that they could vote as intelligent people should do- I suppose they are-honestly, respectfully, individually and not collectively, as it is done in the armed forces.
I regret also that those who are away from their riding on voting day, are not given more incentive to vote. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the transportation of ballot boxes.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Nobody mentions this problem, but we know the scandal which occurred in the province of Quebec, during the provincial election, in connection with the transportation of ballot boxes. I myself, with other

January 20, 1969

persons concerned with election organization in the riding of Shefford, found some in ditches, Mr. Speaker. Yet voting was devised to enable us to choose a legitimate elected government, not an usurped one. I found ballot boxes in the ditch, and the people responsible for that state of affairs know all about it. That is unacceptable. I regret that nothing is changed in that field and that electoral expenses are not controlled.
A royal commission enquired on the matter of electoral expenses. I read its report many times, as probably all members concerned, and especially members of the committee on privileges and elections.
In reading that report, we find that members-and once again, I do not wish to offend anyone,-are elected by money and not by the people. We also find that money is the prime factor of the people's confidence in a government. If you are willing to pay such and such an amount for our vote, we shall vote in your favour. The same persons turn around and go to the candidate of the other party and say: If you are ready to buy our vote for so much, we shall vote in your favour. They pocketed money from both sides. The people who do such a thing, Mr. Speaker, are voting for the Ralliement Creditiste.
Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues refuse to change the present system, they are running the risk of having some day a Creditiste government, because voters are fed up and tired of a fraud system that does not do justice to a country like ours which has so many examples throughout the world to prompt it to change its electoral system.
I would have many further remarks to make, but I know that several members are also interested in speaking on the subject.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the house on electoral frauds and to say that we disagree entirely with the proposal put before us, namely, to change nothing to the present procedure as far as the armed service ballots are concerned.
I think that we now have the opportunity to prove beyond any doubt that we are responsible and that we are not afraid to face the voters.
If the Liberal government and the Conservative party are not afraid to face the voters, they will have no fear of amending the present elections act in order that everybody will be entitled to a free, strictly honest and unpretentious vote. However, should they be afraid to face the people, they will
Canada Elections Act
be using the same methods in order to win elections as those used in the Shefford and Sherbrooke constituencies.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker-I have to repeat it over and over again because it is necessary in order to be understood-I beg the intelligent ministers and members of the government now listening to me, although few are present, to inform the minister that, for the fourth time, we are asking him to conduct an investigation concerning the armed forces. I wish I could say it in English but, Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak this language well enough and in fact I am afraid I would stumble in my speech. I ask that an investigation be carried out regarding those members of the armed forces that are stationed outside of Canada with a view to reviewing their election system and to control what goes on at election time, not only to have one or two persons testify but to thoroughly investigate the situation. I think that the situation has deteriorated generally to the extent that members of the armed forces are unaware of whom they are voting for.
Mr. Speaker, they are not told what is going on in their country and in their constituencies but they are told that the better man is Mr. So and so. The serviceman does not fill out his ballot-paper himself, as this is probably done by the sergeant, the colonel or whoever teaches military drill or sentences them to detention for misbehaviour.
I am not making any charges accusations, but we have doubts, Mr. Speaker, since no definite information has been given to us. I think that, to enlighten the committee on privileges and elections, it would be quite appropriate for the hon. minister to have such an investigation conducted, which would not necessarily be expensive but would prove that the government is willing to modernize the elections act.
Once again, I wish to congratulate the mover of this bill which I trust will be referred to the committee on privileges and elections. Personally, I wish to assure the hon. member that I will give my most sincere attention to his motion, while expressing the reservations I have just mentioned concerning members of the armed forces and public servants serving outside Canada.

January 20, 1969
Canada Elections Act
Mr. Speaker, I hope that one day we will have an honest, intelligent and fair election system which will produce the governments we want and not forced upon us like those we have had since 1867.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join that chorus of voices in support of this private members' notice of motion. I note that we have only ten minutes before this measure will come to a vote, so I intend to be brief. It is hoped that it will be referred to the committee on privileges and elections.
No single notice of motion could possibly cover all the defects which exist in the Canada Elections Act, but this notice of motion would certainly correct a very important error. In paragraph (c) of this notice of motion the hon. member very rightly proposes that members of the public service of Caanda who live abroad, and their dependants should be able to cast absentee ballots. I am entirely in favour of this suggestion, but he continues to say "in the manner prescribed for the armed services." Perhaps I did not do my homework before entering the house, and I only entered a few moments ago, but I think it will be found that dependants of armed servicemen abroad are not now in a position to vote during a general election. I hope this matter will be corrected when a correction is being made in respect of dependants of members of the public service of Canada.
What I am really doing is putting in a plug for the dependants of armed servicemen serving abroad in order that they may be permitted to cast absentee ballots. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gerald Richard Cobbe (Poriage):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on this most important motion dealing with the Canada Elections Act. I support it wholeheartedly but suggest that possibly it does not go far enough. In proposing a motion like this, and it is the longest one on the order paper, I am sure the hon. member found difficulty in drafting it in shorter form.
Some comments by hon. members regarding the vote of our armed forces abroad have surprised me. I was surprised to hear any suggestion that there is a considerable amount of fraud connected with the armed forces balloting.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I certainly hope the armed forces personnel will have the opportunity to refute this allegation because I do not believe it is fair for these people to have to accept such statements without having such an opportunity. I would say that the suggestion 33 per cent of the people were not motivated to vote probably accounts for these changes being recommended. I do not believe these people were not motivated to vote. The truth is rather that they were not given the opportunity to vote. As was indicated before, it was impossible for them to get to the polls on election day.
I believe that this suggestion not only affects Canadians who travel abroad, such as those who travel on government business, but also other persons who should be given the opportunity to vote on absentee ballots. I am referring to people who have been moved from their districts after the electoral lists have been posted. What opportunity do these people have to vote? In most cases they would have to travel half way across the country to get back to their proper poll. I believe some consideration should be given to these people and their ballots should be separated from those of the armed forces.
There are also people whose place of work is many miles away from home. Our advanced poll system does not take care of these people. If we look up the statistics we will find that one out of every five families in Canada moves every year. So, it is obvious that in our vast country the privilege of voting is taken away from a great number of people.
To get back to the subject of the armed forces vote, I think there are other measures that could be implemented to assist the armed forces personnel in voting. I do not agree with the statement that it is not possible to inform our armed services personnel abroad about what is going on in our country. A list of constituents who are in the armed forces abroad is available to all candidates, and it is quite easy to communicate with these people. I suggest that members of our armed forces abroad have a much greater interest in what is going on in our country than many people who live in Canada, and they are in very close touch with what is going on here. I am sure that the newspapers that are sent to them are more widely read than they are by people living in the constituency who choose not to vote. However, I am not in total agreement with the provisions made for the
January 20, 1969

armed forces to choose where they wish to vote.
Sometime during the months of January or February each year the members of the armed forces are allowed to choose their place of voting. We know that when people join up they automatically vote in the place at which they joined the services. Sometimes our armed forces personnel are stationed in a community for five years. They are active in that community and have much more knowledge of what is going on there than their place or origin. There is provision for these people to transfer their vote, but I do not think it is a simple matter. This decision has to be made in January or February but if an election is called in March it is too late for them to change. I believe this situation should be considered to see whether we cannot make some more practical provision for these people.
I support the suggestion of other hon. members that people in hospitals, bedridden patients and people who cannot leave their homes should be given an opportunity to vote. This would take care of much of the 33 per cent to which reference has been made.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Don't cut one of your colleagues off. How can you do that to a member of your own party?


Gerald Richard Cobbe: I believe there are many people who are deprived of the privilege of voting because they cannot get to the polls.
I should like to put the following motion:
That the said motion be deemed to have been withdrawn and that the subject matter thereof stand referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Canada Elections Act
Skoberg)-Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act-failure to file returns; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (M. Fortin)-Airport- Quebec-site of international airport; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Airport-Quebec-site of international airport.
It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until 8 p. m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed at 8 p.m.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development of Bill C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act.
He said:

Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to the act amending the Historic Sites and Monuments act. This is a quite normal measure which implies no considerable change. The first part of the change that we want to bring about is to enable an official of the National Museums of Canada to sit on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
When the government was reorganized in 1964, the representative of the National Museums of Canada lost his seat on the board and we thought that, in view of the common interest the National Museums of Canada and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada it would be advisable to appoint again a member of the National Museums to the board. As this board is concerned in particular with the historic sites and monuments of Canada, all hon. members will realize the importance for the board, considering its task of conservation, to benefit from the superior knowledge and the guidance of a representative from the National Museums of Canada.
As to the second part of this act, which is very brief, we would like to amend the section which sets out the remuneration of the
January 20, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
The present act provides for an allowance of $20 per day for those experts who apply their knowledge both historical and otherwise to the benefit of Canada. The appointment of the members of that board has always been made very conscientiously. The members appointed by the different administrations have been chosen for their technical knowledge and their qualifications in history. I feel therefore that it would be most fair that they be granted now a more appropriate return for their many services to the community.
I know that most members on the Board are good Canadian citizens, quite happy to serve their country in that capacity, but I also think that we should give them a better salary because it would not be fair for doctors in history, university professors or well-known historians to get only $20 per day. We wish therefore to empower to governor in council to determine, as changes occur, what will be a fair remuneration for the Board members, the more so as several of them-and I should like to pay them a special tribute tonight-devote many hours and even whole days, on weekends or in the summer months, to conduct free of charge their own personal research so as to be able to judge the historical value of the projects suggested to them.
Mr. Speaker, it would be absolutely normal, in the circumstances, to amend this somewhat outmoded provision and, in the case of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, to do as for other boards, that is to have the remuneration of its members fixed but order in council.
Those are the only comments I wish to make at this stage on the measure that can be readily understood by everyone.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, the minister has briefly outlined the purposes of the legislation now before us. As he says, it is merely housekeeping legislation. It makes two small changes to the act, one of which is increasing the membership of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board from 14 to 15. I believe the amendment also provides for a proportionate increase in the quorum. The bill makes the further recommendation that the responsibility for determining the remuneration of the distinguished Canadians serving on the Historic Sites and Monuments


Board be placed in the hands of the Governor in Council.
I am sure no member of this house has any quarrel with those recommendations. In fact, the only complaint I would raise is that the minister did not seize this occasion to make more sweeping changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act. I am sure the time has come when we should review this legislation in a more comprehensive way and recognize that the growing interest in the preservation of Canada's historic sites and monuments should be recognized in a more fitting and enthusiastic manner.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The only comment I wish to make about the appointment of an additional member from the national museums of Canada is ta express satisfaction that the legislation is trying to achieve co-ordination in this way between the functioning of the Canadian museums and of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. It is an indication that these two areas of government activity have very much in common. While it is a step forward to bridge the gap which presently exists, I hope the government will in due course bring about the even closer co-ordination of these activities. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board is now operating under the national parks branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At one time the museums also came within the responsibility of this department. It would seem to me that both should be supervised by one department, either under the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) or under the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), so that we might achieve coordination which would really be effective, making possible a more realistic program to preserve our ancient sites and monuments.
It is a waste of time to get the whole machinery of parliament turning over merely to indulge in housekeeping operations rather than make significant changes such as I have mentioned.
With reference to remuneration of members of the board coming under the control of the Governor in Council, may I say I agree that the present rate of $20 per day plus travelling expenses is hardly sufficient to recompense the kind of people who serve on these boards. This gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to a man who served as chairman of the board for a long period of time-indeed he was active from as far back as 1955, and he
January 20, 1969	COMMONS
continued as chairman right up to the time of the centenary celebrations. I refer to Dr. Bruce Fergusson who is the archivist for the Province of Nova Scotia. Dr. Fergusson is typical of the men who serve voluntarily on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. Twenty dollars a day scarcely pays a hotel bill nowadays, let alone the other expenses which are incurred by these gentlemen and ladies. We have had some distinguished ladies, too, including Dr. Hilda Neatby, who come to Ottawa to advise the government on the preservation of our monuments.
This increase really reflects the fact that we are living in an inflationary period. All Canadians are having difficulty keeping abreast of the greatest increase in the cost of living in Canadian history. While this is not a debate on fiscal, financial or economic policy, and while the minister did not say so in his remarks, the reason for this amendment placing remuneration in the hands of the Governor in Council, where the amount could be varied at will, is that the Governor in Council is himself having trouble keeping up with the rising cost of living in Canada. We object to this rapid increase in the cost of living but we would not want members of the board to be penalized because of the government's maladministration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the way the pensioners are.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Yes, in the way the pensioners are. That is the difficulty, here. If the principle applies in one area it should apply in all areas. The trouble is that the government is discriminating.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hope the minister is giving earnest consideration to a program which has long been contemplated in connection with the preservation and commemoration of our national historic sites and monuments, that is, the animating of our historic sites, particularly of our historic parks. This program has been under way for a number of years, but it has not been making much progress in recent years. I hope that when Louisburg is completed, or becomes operational-and I believe it is getting into the operational stage now- animation will be a fundamental part of the program.
Historic sites and monuments and historic parks have strong appeal to the tourists who are coming to Canada in increasing numbers.
29180-236*
DEBATES	4517
Historic Sites and Monuments Act This means, of course, that the functions of the branch of government concerned here have an important commercial and economic value. In my opinion, the presentation of living history at precise periods in Canada's past has great educational value as has been demonstrated in some of the developments undertaken by the Province of Ontario, in particular at Fort Kingston, the Upper Canada village, and so forth.
This is the sort of thing the federal government should be encouraging right across Canada. I shall not take the time to mention areas which are ideally suited to animation but there are several in every province which deserve this kind of treatment. We have not had a chance to discuss this matter, and I am sorry that the minister did not take the opportunity to deal with it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. At this point I think I should say that if the minister had taken the opportunity to discuss the points which the hon. member is attempting to make now I would have been obliged to call him to order and remind him that this is a bill limited in scope and dealing with two matters only, one concerning the quorum and the other having to do with remuneration. I hope hon. members will seek to confine their remarks to the limited aspects of the bill now before the house.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I was in the middle of a sentence when Your Honour rose. I was about to say I was sorry the minister had not broadened the scope of this bill, in which case we could have had a debate which was worthwhile. As it is, the whole machinery of parliament is being used to make these minor changes with no opportunity for the whole subject to be discussed. The labour of the house will bring forth nothing but a mouse, nothing of any real import.
Here too, was the golden opportunity to co-ordinate the functions of several branches of government so that we might have a more suitable program of historic sites and monuments commemoration. We have many government agencies working in this field. Some are doing a good job but would do a much better job if they worked under one minister or branch of government.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to state that I feel the time is long overdue when the National Battlefields Commission should amalgamate its operations
4518	COMMONS
Historic Sites and Monuments Act with the functions of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board to encompass all the historic sites of significant battles fought in Canada, such as the war of 1812, the Northwest rebellion and so forth. Under the aegis of one branch of government we could move forward to meet the rapidly increasing demands from the Canadian public for recognition of this particular facet of our Canadian history, as evidenced by growing attendance ;at monuments and historic sites.
Having said that, I presume the bill will go to committee, where perhaps we will have the opportunity to inquire into some of the broader aspects of the problem. However, I do urge the minister to move far beyond the confines of this bill so we can do something in these matters that is worthy of a great and growing nation such as Canada.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to discuss the bill and to raise one problem that we have in our area in connection with the act. The amending bill that is before us makes only a few slight changes to the Historic Sites and Monuments Act; it adds an officer from the National Museum of Canada to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, and this raises the total membership of the board to 15.
I am hopeful that the addition of one member to this board will reverse a decision I believe the department has made with regard to a project in my riding of Kootenay West. It is interesting to note that the board will now consist of the following members: the Dominion Archivist, an officer from the National Museums of Canada, an officer from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, two representatives for each of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and one representative for each of the other eight provinces, to be appointed by the Governor in Council. The bill also provides for an increase in the remuneration paid to board members. I believe that the amendments which have been offered by the minister are good ones.
I should like to speak briefly on the functions of this particular act which was assented to in 1953. Since the act was passed about 15 years ago, in my opinion an outstanding job has been done in putting up plaques and monuments across Canada which go a long way toward preserving the history of our nation. One of the act's objectives, among others, is to establish historic museums and to provide for their administration, preservation
[Mr. Dinsdale.l
DEBATES	January 20, 1969
and maintenance. Very recently, a request was made by the Rossland Historical Museum Association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. I have to admonish the hon. member in the same way as I did the hon. member who spoke before him, and remind him that the only matters before the house for discussion at the moment are very simple ones, namely the quorum of this commission and, secondly, the amendment to section 4. As the hon. member knows, the fact that a statute is being amended does not allow hon. members to go behind the amendments to the statute and consider the details of the statute being amended.
I appreciate that the hon. member may have a matter of interest to bring to the attention of the house, and he will certainly be allowed to do this. But at the same time I hope he will limit his remarks as much as possible to the very specific points that are now before the house for consideration.


Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I intend to be very brief. I should just like to raise this point. My hope is that the addition to the board will provide a much better chance for a new hearing which would result in changing a verdict that I think should be changed.
I was talking about the Rossland Historic Museum which was very interested in setting up in the city of Rossland a Nancy Greene Ski Museum. They had hoped to incorporate it in the existing Rossland Historical Museum building. This request was made to the minister and I think passed on to the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport, who in turn I think should have passed it on to this board. I presume the minister has the correspondence in this matter.
I should like to point out to the minister and the government-I will take only a moment or two-that the Rossland Historical Museum Association has done an outstanding job in the preservation of the history of Rossland, as everyone is well aware. Nancy Greene has become one of the best known sports figures in Canada's history. She has made the name of Rossland synonymous with skiing. It was here that she learned the art of skiing which won for her and for Canada a gold medal and the title of World Cup Ski Champion.
I feel it is essential that every consideration be given to the establishment of a Nancy Greene Ski Museum in Rossland, her own
January 20, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act
home town. A museum of this type would add immeasurably to the already successful Ross-land Historical Museum. It would be an outstanding attraction in this already famous ski town and would highlight the exploits of Nancy Greene, who by her fine example, her sportsmanship, courage and achievement has already made a tremendous contribution to Canadian prestige and Canadian youth.
Before any further time elapses, I feel action should be taken. Nancy Greene has become a legend in her own time. A Nancy Greene Ski Museum at Rossland would be a tangible and permanent token of appreciation by the Canadian people in honouring this great Canadian. I urge the minister and the government to assist the Rossland Museum Association in the establishment of this museum.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank you for your indulgence in allowing me to present this very brief, but I can assure you tremendously important plea from the West Kootenay riding, and particularly from that great ski centre in my riding, Rossland. I trust the minister will give this matter full consideration and will let the people know that the government will go along with the minute expenditure that is involved.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I will also try to speak briefly and not to wander from the subject.
Of course, we admit that there should be a representative of the national museums on this Board. We think that is quite normal.
As for the remuneration, it seems to me that the government is too readily entrusted with the care of determining it under an order in council. It could have been suggested, for example, that the committee dealing with these matters should set each year, if necessary, a new allowance, as it could be done here. I recognize that the amount of $20 is entirely insufficient and that it should be increased to a more logical, concrete and actual amount for 1969. However, I agree that instead of always giving that responsibility to the governor in council, it could be assigned to the committee of the house.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that when it is a question of historic monuments, we should take into consideration the existence of the
two nations in Canada. Therefore, I would like to see more attention paid to Quebec's wishes in that field, and its views considered, as it represents the great majority of the French-Canadian nation, and I want to stress this. Why? For the simple reason that when there are two nations, both do not necessarily have the same heroes. A hero, to one nation, may be a zero for the other. Therefore, it is important in a country such as ours, to consider the views of the two nations, with justice and equality, as far as historic monuments are concerned
Finally, and this is my last remark, I believe that representation on that Board would be more adequate and equitable if members were chosen according to their nationality and not the areas they come from as at present.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I shall not delay passage of this bill, item No. 17 on today's order paper. I merely wish to compliment the Historic Sites and Monuments Board for the diligent work it has done in the past. I should like to pay special tribute to a friend of Alberta, whom I will not name, for the tremendous job he has done in reminding Canadians in general and Albertans in particular of the historic sites which played so great a part in the history of our province. I particularly wish to remind this house and the board of the historic significance of the peace treaty signed in the 1880's in which the chief participants were Colonel McLeod and Chief Crowfoot.


An hon. Member:: Wasn't it 1877?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An hon. member suggests the date was 1867 or 1877. I think the date was closer to 1880. I do not know the exact date, although no doubt members of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board do. It is well known that after the uprisings at Portage and in northern Saskatchewan generally, Chief Crowfoot played a prominent part in bringing peace to western Canada. In addition, his actions brought peace to our Indians.
Chief Crowfoot's actions have passed into history and we ought to pay tribute to the tremendous part he played in bringing peace. When one remembers the difficult times the settlers in the United States had during that period and the fights there were between General Custer and the Indians one cannot praise too highly the actions of Colonel
January 20, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act McLeod which culminated in the signing oi the peace treaty along the Bow river in 1877,
I think.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I hope the Historic Sites and Monuments Board will commemorate that occasion in an apt way. I have visited the site where the peace treaty was signed. The occasion ought to be commemorated, and I stress these words, because of the confusion our Indians find themselves in today. Nearly 100 years have passed since that event and those who judge us may say that the white man has failed to integrate the Indian into his society.
I should not like it if others could judge us that harshly with justification.
I should like to think that, 100 years after the signing of the treaty, we are integrating our Canadian Indians into our society and treating them in every way as full fledged Canadian citizens. It would be apt if in some way the federal government and provincial government concerned could commemorate the signing of the treaty. Surely, it had significance for those concerned when it was signed. I hope it will have significance for us all in the future.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty to inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close debate.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few things to say.
I thank my hon. friends for having kept generally to the matter before the house and which is rather simple, that is the number of members and their salaries.
I simply want to make-

I think we all agree that Nancy Greene made a great contribution to Canada, and we can be very proud of her. Certainly, I am happy to recognize her contribution. But because she is so young and so lively, we cannot consider her an historic site or monument. I think there are probably other ways to give her credit for what she did for Canada.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, January 17, consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-102, to amend the Patent Act, the Trade Marks Act and the Food and Drugs Act.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I shall not speak at length on this bill. I hope it will pass very quickly and be sent to committee where it can be scrutinized and improvements brought to the attention of committee members and of the house.
I want to make it quite plain that this party is not opposed to second reading of the bill. In fact, we are quite anxious to have it approved under the new practice so that it will go to the committee and receive careful examination. I do not think there is any question about that. Some suggestions have been made to the contrary. I have read the speeches made to date in the house and I think some rather unfair suggestions have been made concerning the position taken by this party.
It is true that, in the legal phrase, we are approving it dubitate. We are dubious that the bill will have the results which are envisaged by the minister, but we hope it will. We feel that the question of drugs and drug prices is a subject of very substantial importance to the people of this country. Any suggestions to the contrary are improperly conceived. We think it could be a better bill. Hon. members on the government side have said it could be a better bill. Hon. members in the party to my left have said quite definitely it could be a better bill. This remains to be seen. Time will tell.
Personally, I will support any reasonable measure directed towards achieving better and cheaper drugs for the people of our country. However, I would equally oppose any measure which would result in placing before the people of the country drugs which are not likely to do the job which they should do. Anything which prevents people from being relieved of the indignities, the unhappiness and the misfortune of disease and illness should be removed, but it is just as wrong for people to be deceived and to have drugs given to them which do not achieve the effect which they should. It is of no value to provide cheaper drugs if those drugs do not do
January 20, 1S69

the job which they should. That is our position.
I read the evidence contained in the Green book, the discussions which took place and the examinations conducted by the officials of the Restrictive Trade Practices Branch. I read the evidence given before the Hall royal commission. I read the statements prepared by the authorities of the province of Alberta. In that regard I want to pay tribute to the province of Alberta, to Dr. Ross, and to a particular friend of mine and a friend of many hon. members in this chamber, Mr. James Fraw-ley, who made this particular project his own and did a great deal of work. He is entitled to a lot of credit for what he has done.
I have read part of the evidence given before the parliamentary committee on food and drugs in 1964 and 1965, which dealt almost exclusively with the question of safety and control of drugs. I have read a lot of the evidence given before the special committee, the Harley committee, in 1966 and 1967, and I would like to recall for the memory of the house one of the statements made in the recommendations of the 1964 and 1965 parliamentary committee on food and drugs.
One of its recommendations is that the inspection of quality control methods here and abroad should be carried out by the Food and Drug Directorate. If felt necessary by the Food and Drug Directorate, this quality control check was to be carried out by any importer before a drug is released for use in Canada. If this inspection is not carried out or does not meet our standards, the imported drug should not be released for use in Canada. That was coupled with a number of other recommendations.
I would assume it is the government's view that these and other similar recommendations are met by clause 5 of the bill which empowers the government to pass orders in council. I will not bother to read that clause but I think it is quite plain the intention is that the Food and Drug Directorate would make recommendations to the government which, in turn, would be incorporated into regulations. I am not happy about that. It seems to me that if it is possible for the government to set down in detail in this bill the various steps it proposes should be taken to reduce the price of drugs, then that should be accompanied at this stage by fairly specific proposals which the government intends to take in the future. This important matter should not be left to the good faith of the
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act government and the Food and Drug Directorate.
I am not questioning the good faith of the Food and Drug Directorate but this subject is something with which we cannot trifle. In effect, by clause 5, the government is saying it is underwriting and guaranteeing that the quality of drugs brought into Canada as a result of the legislative changes envisaged when this bill is passed will be effective, efficient and safe. I want to say to the government that this is a very heavy responsibility to bear. Should there be injury, death or disaster, following the passage of this bill, as a result of the failure of the Food and Drug Directorate or of the government to introduce regulations which provide these safety features, the responsibility will lie squarely on the government. This is a responsibility it must be prepared to assume.
When the bill gets into committee it will be possible for members of the committee to make proposals, by way of amendment or otherwise, to improve the legislation. I am quite confident it is susceptible of improvement and change under the new rules under which we now operate. The committee is the place where this can be done.
I hope no undue restrictions will be placed on the committee in its effort to improve this legislation and to extract from the government something more specific than is contained within the four corners of clause 5 of the bill. I think this is something which members of this party who have spoken have stressed over and over again, as it was their duty to do. I think they would have been derelict in discharging their responsibility under the oath they have taken as members' of this house had they, with the special knowledge they have, failed to emphasize this fact. I believe they are entitled to approbation from this house for making this point so strongly on many occasions. This is the position we take. I hope this bill will pass through the second reading stage, will be committed to the standing committee tonight, and that this committee will undertake its duty to examine this legislation as soon as possible.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe any member of this house opposes the principal objective of ,this bill which is the lowering of drug prices to the Canadian consumer. The minister indicated that the bill which is presently before us is
January 20, 1969

Patent Act

Trade Marks Act based on the recommendation of the special committee on drug costs and prices chaired by Dr. Harley. The Harley committee based its recommendation concerning the amendment of subsection 3, section 41, of the Patent Act on the recommendation in the Hall Commission report which commission in turn based its recommendation on the recommendation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
In going through the recommendations of the Harley committee, I find myself in general agreement with 21 of the 23 recommendations. The only recommendation to which I take exception is recommendation No. 18 which is the basis for the bill before the house. In reading through the Hall Commission recommendations with respect to drugs I find myself in agreement with 22 of its 24 recommendations and, in the case of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommendations, I agree with all but one of their seven recommendations. The committee and the two commissions have made an exhaustive and thorough study of the safety and cost factors involved in the sale of prescription drugs to the public in Canada. Unfortunately, the two commissions and the Harley committee failed to give in depth attention to the effect which some of their recommendations might have on further capital investment in manufacturing and research facilities and to the growth of certain ancillary raw material supply industries located in Canada. I am intervening today in the hope that when Bill C-102 is considered in committee detailed attention can be given these items.
The official opposition has expressed concern at the possible health dangers involved to the public in the importation of drugs and drug ingredients. I do not share this concern as I have complete confidence in the ability of the Food and Drug Directorate to enforce the safety standards necessary to protect the Canadian public. I cannot imagine any Canadian government official taking a risk with the health of the Canadian people. If the facilities are not yet available for adequate testing of these imports, then the Food and Drug Directorate obviously will not allow such importations until it is able to impose adequate surveillance.
The basic issue posed by the amendment to subsection 3 of section 41 of the Patent Act has been succinctly stated by D. H. W. Henry, Q.C., Director of Investigation and Research, Combines Investigation Act, to the special

committee on drug costs and prices on February 7, 1967. Mr. Henry said:
-The first fundamental issue emerging in this committee's proceedings is whether a drug manufacturing industry ought to be preserved in Canada in its present form. To do so requires continuation of the present protective devices which the industry considers necessary to its viability, but which deny Canadians access to less costly supplies of drugs. To remove significant elements of that protection (as by extending compulsory licensing to imports, or by abolishing drug patents) should lower the prices of drugs reaching the Canadian market but may well shift some sources of suply to plants abroad. It is possible that some Canadian drug manufacturers may become distributors to a greater extent than they are now. Manufacturing would then tend to concentrate on those products which Canadians can produce most efficiently.
Bill C-102 reflects these views and the minister in his remarks of October 17, 1968 indicated that these views were in effect the basis for Bill C-102. I say that I share the minister's hope that as a result of Bill C-102 drug prices will be lowered to the Canadian public. The expert witness I have just quoted indicated in these general terms what he thought the effects on the drug industry would be if compulsory licensing of imports were allowed. I wish to point out that the possible effects mentioned by this witness have not been completely investigated. Certain other side effects have never been mentioned, let alone seriously considered by the Harley committee or the two commissions.
It was this particular area of neglected attention which led to my original interest in the drug bill. My constituency, as it existed before redistribution, had 26 farmers who were supplying P.M.U. to a major pharmaceutical company in Montreal. The initials P.M.U., for the uninitiated, stand for pregnant mares urine. Since redistribution my constituency has six such suppliers of the raw material for estrogenic hormones. The total number of farmers involved in this field in Canada exceeds 600 and the revenue which these farmers derive from the sale of this product exceeds $7.5 million annually. To give you an idea of the importance of this agricultural product in comparison with other sources of agricultural income, I should point out that the total peach production in Canada in 1966, according to the Canada Year Book, was valued at $7.4 million; grape production, $6.6 million; sugar beet production, $12.1 million and sheep and lamb production, $9.4 million. Of particular importance is the complementary nature of the revenue so derived. The production season is from November to
January 20. 1969

April. Farmers involved in this production receive an income during what is normally a slack farm revenue season.
It is worth noting that this industry was developed by a Canadian company, a company which has been highly praised by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) in his remarks to the house on October 17, 1968. The development of estrogenic hormones is an outstanding example of a discovery made and developed in Canada, with production continuing in Canada under the laws as they have existed to date. As a result of this extremely successful discovery this particular company has prospered and expanded and has in consequence developed the most extensive drug research facilities in Canada. From reading the report of the Harley committee and the two commissioners, one gets the impression that because most large Canadian drug companies are foreign subsidiaries there is little potential for the Canadian export of drugs. The example I am dealing with belies this suggestion since this company now exports more than $11.3 million worth of estrogenic compounds annually. In addition to payments to farmers, the company also pays out substantial amounts in wages, for goods and services.
The question which I should like to see the committee consider is whether under the change proposed by Bill C-102 it would be possible for the success story I have outlined to be repeated with a future Canadian discovery. I would hope that the committee would consider whether the shifting of sources of supply, as predicted in the testimony to the Harley committee which I quoted, poses a danger to the P.M.U. industry as well as to the growth of this industry. The Harley committee, in its report at page 2604 of its proceedings stated, and I quote:
No recommendations could be considered, which, although designed to lower drug prices . . . might. . . have a detrimental effect upon other aspects of the Canadian economy.
This statement was set forth by the committee as a basic principle from which other recommendations of the committee would flow.
Since Bill C-102 is the direct result of the Harley committee's recommendation, I would urge the committee of this house which will consider Bill C-102 to give effect to this basic principle enunciated by the Harley committee and, in consequence, to consider thoroughly any economic effect upon this industry or other areas of the Canadian economy.

Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Another industry which needs to be looked at again and in greater detail is the fine chemicals industry. The minister stated on October 17, 1968 as recorded at page 1514 of Hansard for that date:
Even now, as pointed out by the Harley commission and admitted by the drug industry, pharmaceutical corporations in Canada, taken together, import some 85 per cent of the active ingredients from their parent corporations or other foreign producers.
This may be true, but I would ask the minister and the committee which will be studying the subject, if it is not a desirable objective for Canada to encourage rather than discourage the industry. The latter will be the case if Bill C-102 passes in its present form. Is there not a way to at least allow this industry some hope for expansion within the confines of the government's stated objective to reduce the cost of drug ingredients by allowing foreign competition?
On October 17 when the minister introduced Bill C-102 he indicated that the proposed legislation should not be assumed to be discriminatory against domestic manufacturers. He stated they will continue to enjoy a virtual monopoly for their products while such products are classified as a new drug by the Food and Drug Directorate. This view was expressed, not as an opinion but as a fact by the Harley committee in respect of its proceedings at page 2636 as follows:
After full consideration your committee is of the opinion that under the present system, the patentee has ample time to establish and consolidate his position in the market (and thereby recuperate his research cost) by virtue of the fact that it takes some four to five years for the drug to lose its new drug status as determined by the food and drug directorate. As explained earlier it is more "likely" that a compulsory licence will be sought prior to the date the drug loses its status as a new drug.
It is true, therefore, that the Harley committee in making its recommendations for amendment of section 41(3) of the Patent Act considered that the patentee had time to recoup his research cost and consolidate his position in the market in virtue of non-competition during the period of the new drug status, which the committee accepted as a fact to be four or five years.
I should like to point out to the minister that this is one specific area which should be reviewed. This so-called fact, accepted as such by the Harley committee, is not a fact at all. Even under the previous act, at least one
4524	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act licence was issued during the period of the new drug application. Thus the Harley committee made its recommendation for amendments to section 41(3) of the Patent Act on the questionable assumption that it is highly unlikely a compulsory licence would be issued while the compound is classified as a new drug. Despite the minister's recognition of this assumption inherent in his remarks of October 17, a proviso governing compulsory licences does not appear in either the present law or in the amendment proposed in Bill C-102. Therefore, the inventor does not actually have this implied protection.
The danger resulting from this situation, and this was not pointed out by the Harley committee or by the minister, is that until a patent issues there is presently nothing to prevent a competitor from manufacturing the new drug, completing the food and drug requirements and proceeding to market. It is conceivable that he could even reach the market in advance of the originator by taking advantage of the following circumstances.
Canada is a member of the international convention on patents. When the applicant for a Canadian patent wishes to protect his patent in foreign countries, he must file such application within one year from the date of filing his Canadian application. His foreign patent application would then carry the Canadian priority date. That is, it would be regarded as if it had been filed on the same day as the original patent application. In the case of Holland or Belgium, the contents of patent applications are publicly disclosed six months after the date of such application. Hence, the inventor in absolute terms has at most 1J years maximum lead time, not four or five years as members of this house have been led to believe.
Once the invention is made public, it is quite conceivable that a competing firm could proceed with the utmost speed and utilize all its facilities in developing a new compound. This firm might even market it before the inventor, after having met all the food and drug requirements. Since the patent has not been issued, there is no contravention of industrial property rights. At the time the patent issues the competing firm could then apply for a compulsory licence with the result that, having met the food and drug requirements, this firm could market its product either prior to the inventor, concurrently or shortly thereafter.
As indicated at the beginning of my remarks, an area of economic consequences

DEBATES	January 20, 1969
which I feel should be considered by the committee is the effect which the proposed legislation will have on investment in manufacturing and research facilities in Canada. It is common knowledge, and the minister himself has underlined this, that the drug industry is international in scope and the larger Canadian drug companies are all subsidiaries of international companies.
It must be remembered, however, that whether a drug company carrying on operations in Canada is a foreign subsidiary or not, the local management has a vested interest in increasing the scope of that company's activities. Quite simply, the local management gets paid more if its activities are larger. Fortunately for Canada, local management has until recently been successful in convincing head offices that expansion should take place in Canada both in manufacturing and research facilities. The recent incentives afforded to research by the minister of industry have undoubtedly helped local management in their arguments with their head offices, for purposes of installing research facilities in Canada.
Unfortunately, since the advent of Bill C-190 and the present Bill C-102, the capital investment picture in the drug industry has not been quite as rosy. I know as a fact that one large pharmaceutical firm based in the province of Quebec recently expanded its research facilities in the United States instead of Canada with a substantial capital investment. An even more serious loss to Canada and the province of Quebec resulted from a decision by another large pharmaceutical firm to expand both manufacturing and research facilities in the United States rather than Canada. The amount involved in this second decision was considerably in excess of $25 million. This story is fact, not rumour, and I recently confirmed this with the company. To be fair, in the latter case I do not think that the climate of uncertainty created by Bill C-102 and its predecessor Bill C-190, should bear the exclusive blame for the decision. However, it was a major contributing factor in the decision which cost the province of Quebec a multi-million dollar capital investment.
It is very easy to say that this climate of uncertainty was and is unjustified, but unfortunately this uncertainty is a fact. I wish, therefore, to suggest one measure for the committee's consideration which I feel would mitigate the climate of unease and uncertainty which Bill C-102 has created in the drug
January 20, 1969
4S25

industry. This suggestion would also give effect to the statement made by the minister on October 17, that the government does indeed wish to extend a minimum degree of protection to the original drug patent holders as well as the small Canadian chemical manufacturers. Unless we are to eliminate the small Canadian chemical manufacturers altogether, some minimal protection is needed. Unless such a manufacturer enjoys the advantages of lead time over foreign competitors he cannot hope to effectively compete, and the existence of the remaining small manufacturers in Canada will be jeopardized.
I have outlined three areas of economic consequence of Bill C-102 which I hope the committee of this house will study as thoroughly as time permits. I do not think there is any question but that Bill C-102 will be adopted by the House of Commons. But I hope that in its final form it will more closely than is now the case give effect to the basic principles enunciated by the Harley committee when it stated, and I quoted this earlier, that no recommendation could be considered which, although designed to lower drug prices in Canada, might have a detrimental effect on other aspects of the Canadian economy.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I believe strongly that a relatively minor amendment could go a long way toward meeting the criticism which I have outlined. I would hope that both the government and the committee would consider an amendment which would give statutory effect to the five year protective period which the Harley committee in its recommendation, and the minister, assumed existed. I suggest that when the committee of the House of Commons is considering amendments to Bill C-102, it consider adding to section 41(4) of the Patent Act words along these lines:
A compulsory licence may be granted at any time during the life of the patent to anyone who wishes to manufacture a compound in Canada, while compulsory licences shall only be granted for imported material five years after the patent issues.
I suggest that the amendment would continue the use of competitive market factors as a means of reducing drug prices because it would permit compulsory licences to be granted immediately for drugs manufactured in Canada. It would give the originator a five year protection from the compulsory licensing 29180-2871
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act of foreign imports of drugs and drug ingredients. All this amendment would do would be to put into law what is already an implied protection, but I am convinced it would clear the air and vastly improve the investment climate for the drug industry in Canada.
I might add that the issues I have raised are solely economic. I wonder if the minister would consider referring Bill C-102 to the trade and commerce committee rather than to the Health, Welfare and Social Affairs Committee. I realize it is a little late in the game to suggest this. However, in support of my suggestion I would point out that witnesses have been heard covering all health aspects including safety factors and the cost of drugs, but the various committees and commissions have not had full discussion on the economic aspects of the proposed changes to the Patent Act. I hope the minister will consider referring this bill to the trade and commerce committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, no measure that has come before the house this year has more interest for large numbers of people across Canada in every riding, I am sure, from the Atlantic right through to the west coast. It is now nearly ten years since the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act reached the conclusion that "prices of drugs in Canada are among the highest in the world". Since then no government has done anything worth while to get away from this unenviable distinction for Canada.
For thousands of Canadians the price of drugs has been, and continues to be, a crushing burden. One member of the house the other day stated that a quarter of our population cannot afford to buy the drugs they must have in order to live. These are the people on low income, people with large families, the chronically ill, the elderly, the pensioners. For far too many of these people, the only way they can get the life-giving drugs they need is to cut down on the food they ought to be having. They are consequently aggravating the vicious cycle of poor physical and nervous health. But I was rather shocked to hear the hon. member, for whom I have very high regard, make the suggestion that the best way for the government to show the people of Canada that they want to help in the problem of drugs would be to bonus the 25 per cent who need help the worst and, presumably,

branch has a transcript of the hearings before the U.S. Senate committee which contains the full details. I am enclosing photostats of press clippings which you may find interesting.
I certainly did find them interesting because the clippings bore out in full detail the excellent summary of the situation outlined in the minister's letter.
I wish to add two new developments in what I call the case of the cover up cartel. The United States senate subcommittee continued its investigations, and I may say that they were long, detailed and thorough. It reported the fact in its year end report for 1967 that while the price of bulk quinine had dropped dramatically from almost $6 an ounce to $2.53, the manufacturers of quinidine tablets were not passing on the savings to the consumers. It also said, and this is very important, that there is not now, nor has there ever been since world war II, either a shortage of world supplies or an excess of world demand for quinine or quinidine.
It pointed out further that even though the cartel had bought almost 90 per cent of the U.S. stockpile of quinine before the U.S. defence department froze the remainder, based on the current military needs there is now left enough quinine in the stockpile to last for at least 1,142 years. So much for the Viet Nam war theory as an explanation for the price of quinidine tablets.
The United States did not rest at this point. The latest development I could find appeared in the Toronto Star of October 26 of last year which published a UPI special despatch from Washington as follows:
U.S. federal grand jury yesterday Indicted 15 drug companies and 8 of their executives on criminal charges stemming from an alleged international conspiracy involving quinine and related drugs.
I have been trying very hard to follow up the result of that indictment and of that trial. So far I have not been able to trace it, and I would be very glad indeed to find out how that trial is progressing.
Now, I should like to go back for a moment to my letter of May 4, 1967 from the then Registrar General. He continued:
While it appears clear that increased prices have been due to the action of the cartel, all of the operations of the cartel have taken place outside Canada and beyond the reach of Canadian law. I was advised by the Director of Investigation and Research that Canadian suppliers appear to have acted responsibly. They are not parties to the cartel but have been forced to pay the inflated prices to obtain supplies of the basic drug. As far as can be learned, the increased prices for tablets simply reflect these increased prices.
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
I am wondering whether or not the same-thing could have been said of U.S. manufacturers and people who were handling these drugs, that they were not parties to the cartel but had been forced to pay the inflated prices to obtain supplies of the basic drug. This is not the view that the U.S. government has taken of this matter. I want to know what measures our government proposes to protect Canadian consumers in this and other similar cases of exploitation and of merciless gouging by these international cartels. If the whole matter is presently beyond the reach of Canadian law, what can Canadians do to get such drugs at prices the great majority who need them can afford? This is a question with which I hope the minister will deal when we reach the committee stage of the bill. It is very relevant and urgent, and of course this bill does not elucidate how to deal with a situation of this kind. I should like to know whether the minister has other proposals as a follow up. Perhaps he will indicate them when we reach the committee stage of the bill.
If this whole matter is presently beyond the reach of Canadian law, and I have no doubt that it is, what can the government do to help people get drugs at prices the great majority of them can afford? This is an urgent question. I cannot believe that we should accept an attitude of helpless and hopeless resignation in the face of these international cartels. The United States authorities have acted to indict 15 drug companies and 8 of their executives on criminal charges. Why cannot we do likewise in a similar situation? What is our Combines Investigation Act for? If it cannot be used for such purposes in its present from, let it be amended or scrapped in favour of an act with teeth in it to protect the Canadian consumer. If that act is not suitable, let the minister make explorations as to what else can be done. I understand he is preparing amendments now for dealing with various phases of the need to protect the Canadian consumer, and perhaps this is one matter which he has under advisement. If not, surely it is up to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) to get together and devise ways and means of protecting the Canadian consumer from exploitation by this and other similar cartels.
There are still other measures which must be taken. I think it is exceedingly relevant that we should underline the fact that bill
4528	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act C-102, even though it is important and even though we are going to support it, is only a very small step toward the measures that must be taken to protect the Canadian consumers and to bring down the price of drugs.
I would urge that in these days of air travel, in which this government is taking its part as it should, the minister or ministers involved visit their opposite numbers in other countries, in this case the United States and perhaps Britain, for consultations as to ways and means of dealing with the situations created by such cartels. Obviously, such cartels are not within the control of any one country.
Also, I believe that there are countries which are farther along the road toward the control of drugs than is Canada. Of course, we have heard about Sweden. I hope that Sweden is not a dirty word in this house, although I have heard hon. members object to having Sweden mentioned. I hear suggestions from my confreres behind me that we had better not make it a dirty word. In Sweden, they have given notice that they intend putting the drug industry under national control because they do not think there is any other way of bringing down the price of drugs. I have been told by several people that Japan has been exploring ways and means of controlling the drug industry. I have no doubt that some members of our government, and I hope they would include the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Justice, will next year be visiting Expo in Japan. Perhaps they might make it their business to find out what is being done there to protect the consumers of drugs, because I believe that sooner or later we shall have to have international control of these cartels and of the drug industry. Perhaps this should be done first through O.E.C.D. and eventually through the World Health Organization of the United Nations. Such a course was suggested last fall at a meeting in Geneva by no less a person than Dr. Karl Evang, director general of health services in Norway. He suggested that the World Health Organization would be the most suitable organization through which the various countries could come to an agreement and find ways and means of dealing with international cartels. This is not a far fetched idea. The W.H.O. is already dealing with a number of matters relating to health and welfare and various other matters of concern to countries throughout the world. I do not think it is a moment too soon for the government to begin considering steps of this hind.

DEBATES	January 20, 1969
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Stanley Ronald Basford: I wonder whether the hon. lady would permit a question? Has she heard that Mr. David Henry, the director of research under the Combines Investigation Act is chairman of a working group under the O.E.C.D. and attended a meeting in Paris just before Christmas on the subject of international co-operation in the field of combines? Perhaps, too, the hon. lady noted the remarks of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Gendron) when he drew attention on Friday last to the work the department is doing on an international basis to develop standards of safety and control.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I
am delighted to hear it and I hope Mr. Henry's interests will include the drug industry as well. If the department is thinking along these lines I am more than ever convinced we should be taking action now of the kind I have indicated. We are faced by the prospect of a new and potentially dangerous organization.
Last summer a big new cartel was formed in Stockholm, the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Associations. This is an organization of drug manufacturers from all over the world. I am sure a regular covey of midwives were present, but among them was none other than our old friend Dr. William Wigle, president of the Pharmaceutical Association of Canada. This is the same Dr. Wigle, the friend of the people, who during the hearings of the committee on drugs put up such a relentless battle against each and every proposal designed to bring down the price of drugs to Canadian consumers. So if our friend Dr. Wigle is on the warpath organizing drug manufacturers all over the world to see that drug manufacturers are able to stand up in the face of possible intervention by governments, I am certainly pleased to hear indications that the Canadian government is making plans accordingly. It will be extremely difficult to cope with Dr. Wigle and his cohorts. They move fast, and today we know they need to move fast because the Canadian people are aroused over this question of high drug prices.
I was not much impressed during this debate by assertions on the part of hon. members to my right that the freer import of drugs would prove dangerous to the Canadian people, that it would mean the entry of drugs affected by dirt and foreign elements.
January 20, 1969
In the first place, this manifests a lamentable lack of confidence in the Canadian Food and Drug Directorate, a lack of confidence which I do not think is justified by the record of the directorate. Hon. members to my right used this same argument last year. This year the minister has added a number of clauses to the bill giving additional safeguards. These, in my opinion, ought to be sufficient to allay the fears expressed by members of the official opposition. Nevertheless, the same argument is still being used just as though there had been no additions to the bill. I am inclined to believe members to my right are using the danger of impure drugs as a kind of smokescreen behind which to hide their unalterable objection to putting any curb on the activities of drug manufacturers in this country.
The time has come for hon. members to stand up and be counted. Either they are on the side of the manufacturers or they are on the side of the Canadian people who need the prices of drugs brought down. They cannot have it both ways. The screen which worked so well for them last year, because everyone is concerned about the safety of the Canadian people, has worn very thin, now. It no longer hides them. Although they may still be holding it in front of their faces, their rear is unprotected.
The battle to protect the Canadian consumer must be waged internationally as well as on the home front. We think of McLuhan's phrase "global village" and we realize he spoke words of truth and perception when he used that term. Unfortunately, we are living in a global village which is located in the middle of a jungle of private profit and greed; we must introduce a measure of safety and town planning for the inhabitants. This bill is a tiny beginning, or, to use a metaphor, it is a small crumb when we need the whole loaf.
A great many people are anxious to see drug prices brought down. We, in this corner, will take the crumb, but having done so we shall continue to ask for slice after slice, each slice building up our strength until finally we get the whole loaf. I am glad a great many members on both sides of the house are determined that this bill shall be passed and that it shall constitute only the first step in a program to bring down the prices of drugs to a point at which the Canadian consumer realizes he is getting drugs approximately at cost and not at a figure designed to produce enormous profits for the drug manufacturers. I
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act trust the bill will receive a speedy passage and that it will be the first of a number of measures deisgned to protect the Canadian public.


Mr. Rene Emard (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite favourable to any measure aimed at providing the Canadian people with quality drugs at lower costs. Given the interest that I always have shown in the field of labour, I could hardly be accused of being too much in sympathy with the large industries or high profits made at the expense of the wage earner. We all know that the worker must pay for everything he gets, and I also know that he wishes the best when the health of his family is concerned. The safety of his family must in no instance be jeopardized.
I was not a member of the special Committee on drugs and this probably is a handicap for me. However, I can now consider the drug cost problem impartially.
The proposed legislation is based on some research statistics going back to 1959 and 1960 and issued by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. The matter was examined, but not reexamined by the Royal Commission on health services, that made recommendations in 1964 on the basis of the 1960 data. The special Commons Committee heard many witnesses in 1966 and 1967. Nearly all of them referred to particulars going back to 19591960 and provided by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.
Except for some superficial comparisons on prices, we are presently discussing a bill that will regulate the future of an important Canadian industry, without a detailed economic study having been done on the part played by this industry in our Canadian society, without having adequate data on the true breakdown of the cost of drugs, namely by age, illness, economic sectors and so on; without an exhaustive study of the primary role played by drugs in some specific diseases like mental diseases, tuberculosis, and so on; and without waiting for the report on the thorough examination being made by the Economic Council on the role played by patents in our modern industry.
For example, the role played by patents as a factor of the high cost of drugs in Canada still remains to be determined. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford) made an international comparison of the

4530	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act cost of drugs in his introductory speech, in which he stated that Canadians were at a disadvantage. I am sure that all those who have heard that speech have understood that the same comparison would apply to virtually all the other commodities which we manufacture in Canada, inasmuch as the comparison is made on an official international basis of exchange. The only way to make a decent comparison would be to base it on the relative purchasing power.
But to go back to the speech of the Minister. As an example, he gave a list of nine drugs, which would be enough to warrant the repeal of all patents on drugs in Canada. Besides, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) mentioned it last week. The patents on four of those drugs are about to expire, if they have not expired yet. The patent on three other drugs will end within a few years, and only two will be protected by a patent for some years to come.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I am also told that the Canadian prices referred to in the same speech are quite higher than the most favourable prices charged now to Canadian pharmacists.
I wish to say again that I favour low-priced drugs as long as there is a guarantee that the quality of the drug will not be reduced, that the proceedings covering the importation of drugs will not jeopardize opportunities for new discoveries in Canada, that research and manufacturing facilities will be used at their fullest capacity and that there will be an objective and complete appraisal of the importance of industrial patents in Canada.
The hon. minister pointed out that 95 percent of Canadian patents belong to foreign countries. He places Canada in such a situation that she has nothing to do but to pick up the ball and go home if she thinks she has no chance whatsoever to win the game. The government should act in this field. Why not set up a nationwide organization aimed at enhancing industrial research?
The former minister of Industry said that our country's objective for research and development should be 4 per cent of our gross national product. How could we attain such a goal? By eliminating substantial facilities for drug research in Canada? By ignoring and disregarding the most important incentive to research? By trying to dismantle the most important machineries for the international

DEBATES	January 20, 1969
sharing of technological advances to be found in the domestic patents system?
I admit that we must provide pharmaceutical products at fair and reasonable prices, but I do not think the legislation proposed but the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs will bring the expected results.
I am forced to believe the Canadian Medical Association when its representatives tell us their great concern that the legislation will open the way to drugs of which the security and effectiveness will not always be up to the quality standards that Canadian citizens are entitled to.
I must take the word of experts in international research who draw our attention to the most important part played by the patent system in world trade.
I am most interested in the report prepared by the Economic Council of Canada on the importance of industrial patents in the Canadian industry. Since the report is to be released at the end of February, why not wait for it?
I am also interested to learn the results of the study that the Medical Research Council has performed on the industrial pharmaceutics in Canada.
Besides, I would like to know when the Department of National Health and Welfare will establish a selective assistance regarding drugs for the benefit of those who need them most, such as old people who rely on a small allowance and who are chronically ill, and all the other citizens who are poor and who need drugs badly.
The proposed legislation will only be a risk to the future of our national medicine and an obstacle to the means we have at our disposal to guarantee medical care for those who need it.
Having heard all the speeches delivered on the sujbect in the House of Commons since the beginning of this debate, I am surprised at the little attention given to the economic aspect of this the bill and the consequences it will bring about.
Drug production in Canada is worth about $150 million per year and that industry employs more than 10,000 workers, 2,500 of whom are university graduates. It is estimated that an equivalent number of Canadian workers earn their living by providing services and products directly connected with that industry.
January 20. 1969	COMMONS
With the passage of Bill C-102, competitors who barely have a telephone and employ perhaps a salesman could put on the market imported products soon after their development, knowing that the government will grant them a temporary license less than six months after the issuance of a patent. I expect that companies of pharmaceutical products now manufacturing their products will also obtain licences. Then, instead of plants and laboratories of pharmaceutical products, we will have warehouses, as it often occurs in several Canadian industries.
If the governmental program is really successful, it is obvious that the industry will have to close its research laboratories in Canada and tranfer its manufactures in countries where salaries and manufacturing cost are comparable to those of imported products.
While nearly all the nations in the western world, which use advanced technology, are endeavouring to find fair means for providing pharmaceutical services required by adequate welfare programs, within competitive international patent systems, our government seems determined to endanger the very existence of that industry.
Bill C-102 aims only at cutting the price of drugs to the utmost. What would happen, supposing our pharmaceutical industry was destroyed, our research laboratories were eliminated, and thousands of workers were dismissed, if this bill failed, as did the suppression of the 12 per cent tax?
There are other very important points. We should remember that druggists who sell to the consumers do not come in any way under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
In my opinion, we should have come to some agreement with the provincial governments before introducing this bill. I am convinced that there are other ways to get the desired result, without taking the risk of ruining our drug industry and I hope I will have the opportunity to deal with that within the committee.
Before concluding my comments, Mr. Speaker, allow me to quote the report of the special committee of the House on the cost and prices of pharmaceutical products, commonly called the Harley report. Sub-section 1 of Chapter II gives the basic principles, and I quote:
.-your Committee remained fully conscious that its responsibilities in fact exceed those of the Commissions in that the Committee's conclusions must be such that any of its recommendations, if adopted-
DEBATES	4531
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act
Here is a very important excerpt, and I quote:
-should continue to maintain a proper balance between industry and consumer and take into consideration the importance of continued and increased scientific research in Canada.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)


René Matte: Mr. Speaker,
I shall first take the liberty of recalling the remarks made by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Fortin) regarding this bill. In my opinion, he is one of the few who have outlined the real problem. All possible means are used to reduce the price of drugs at the risk of jeopardizing Canadian pharmaceutical firms.
As the hon. member for Lotbiniere pointed out consideration must be given to the other aspect of the problem, that is to give the taxpayer enough money to enable him to buy those products. If their price is exorbitant because it is impossible to do otherwise on account of their nature, it is obvious that the best solution is to enable people to buy them since, as the hon. member also pointed out, it must be said that, as far as health is concerned, nobody can assume control and declare that he will forever be exempted from having to use drugs.
There exists therefore an innate right to drugs and that is why we should think more often of giving people the means to get them easily. That should be made extremely easy because no distinction must be made between the rich and the poor, the individual from the East or the West, the North or the South. Everybody has the indefeasible right to get proper medical care.
When the minister brought his bill before us on October 17 last, he set up the various stages in connection with it. He stated that the first step had been taken towards reducing prices by removing the sales tax on drugs.
Of course, this legislation was an improvement, but God knows that when one takes a walk among our people the only topic of conversation when one talks about social welfare and national health is always the same, namely that these products are out of reach. Of course removing the sales tax was a step forward, but really that hardly helped the customer. Therefore, this first stage did not produce any significant result and the reduction of the customs tariff from 20 to 15 per cent as well as the limitation of the antidumping duty to imported drugs had of
4532	COMMONS
Patent Act-Trade Marks Act course to bring some results. But I think that much more significant results were expected. However, as the minister said, the second stage of the program is provided in the legislation now proposed.
I agree with the previous speaker that we have here a rather serious menace to the drug industry of this country. That is why we shall have, some day, to reconsider the solution advocated by the Ralliement Creditiste and create a real "just society" by giving the people the necessary buying power to get the commodities they need. Everybody agrees that the commodities with which the present bill is concerned are essential ones and that is why we take advantage of this debate to emphasize the importance of bringing about reforms enabling the citizens to enjoy the buying power necessary to get what they need.
Thus, it is not a matter of slowing the pace of production through laws which would make it impossible to produce at a reasonable price. If, however, we care to get at the bottom of the problems we shall have to give the consumer buying power, and this will automatically bring about progress in production industries.
The third stage of the comprehensive program had to do with the establishment of an information service for doctors. But there are precisely glaring cases of conspiracy between doctors and manufacturers. In fact, we often see, for instance, a pill which costs 5 cents and contains such and such quantity of such and such ingredients, while a similar pill containing exactly the same quantity of the same ingredients sells for 17 cents. If the doctor prescribes the 17 cent pill, the patient will purchase it. How is it that such things can take place? We should clarify that in our present administration. A drug should never be paid more than what it is worth. We should exert ourselves on finding out the true manufacturing cost of products; we would often find that the excessive price of drugs is not only due to the cost of labour, but often to a bad organization. Moreover, it is only a matter of fraud, and again it is the humble folk, those who pay and who do not have the necessary purchasing power, who are the victims.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, in accordance with standing order 40, a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been put and seconded.

DEBATES	January 20, 1969


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before Your Honour launches into the adjournment debate may I say that since the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), as well as one or two hon. members of our group, wish to contribute to this debate our party would give favourable consideration to any proposal to extend the sitting for a reasonable period, if it were felt that this debate could be completed. In view of the importance of the bill and the desirability of completing the second reading and sending it to committee, I was wondering if the house would be favourably disposed to extending the time of sitting. I will not move any formal motion. Instead, I am indicating our party's view on the matter.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: We would be agreeable to that, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I submit that too many wish to speak for us to finish this debate tonight.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Could I ask the government house leader what the business will be tomorrow, since this bill will obviously not be completed tonight?
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would expect it might be completed tomorrow and we would call it as the first order of business. As the second order of business, we will call item No. 9, which is the bill to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The third item of business would be No. 12 on the Order Paper, the bill to amend the Veterans Land Act; the fourth item No. 33, the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, and the fifth item No. 41, the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Corporations and
January 20, 19S9	COMMONS
Labour Unions Returns Act, which came into force in 1962, was to determine the effects of non-resident ownership and control of corporations, and to chart the flow of funds between the Canadian and U.S. sections of international unions.
Last October 4 I asked in the house why the annual returns from the corporations section under the act were complete only up until the year 1963. On adjournment debate on October 8 the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang) stated that it was not the intention of the government to let this legislation waste away. He also said that the returns have been made on time but the difficulty has been in compiling, investigating and reporting upon the data received. It was stated that the corporations are not in default in filing the returns and that the 1967 returns are on hand.
There are 70 full time employees filing the corporations' returns. My question of the Department of Trade and Commerce was how many corporations have not filed returns under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act. The answer was that these figures were not available, but I later received an answer to my questions concerning the total number of corporations for which returns must be filed.
It seems strange that these figures are known. The statement was that 185 corporations are under investigation for 1965, 745 for 1966 and 2,990 for 1967, yet the Minister without Portfolio says all 1967 returns are on hand. I ask whether or not the responsible government department intends enforcing the penalty provision of the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act, and if not why not?
A further point should be clarified. In view of the debate which took place on this measure in 1962 and 1965, and particularly in view of the concern expressed by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs in 1966 over the manner in which the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act was being administered as shown in the minutes of proceedings and evidence No. 13, July 5, 1966, what specific steps have been taken to implement the committee's warnings to officials of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics who appeared before it on July 5, 1966? They were instructed to proceed forthwith with the preparation of any amendments or revisions necessary to define clearly the type of organized labour group which the legislation was intended to cover?
DEBATES	4533
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I suggest that either this act must be made worthwhile in its entirety or the government should move to abolish it. I would also suggest to the Minister without Portfolio that tonight he should not repeat the words he used in his answer some time ago.


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the discussion of this matter some time ago, this is not the easiest legislation to administer because of the large number of corporations that may fall under the provisions of the act. Steps are being taken now, in correspondence and other means of communication, to acquaint firms with their obligations under the act and to discuss fully the reasons for not supplying the required information. As a result of this correspondence and communication, the 1967 returns are being received at the rate of 200 to 300 each week. The process of making appropriate contacts with the number of firms involved is very time consuming and staff resources must be allocated between the various parts of the program.
Many of the delinquent firms are small and do not have full-time accounting and legal staff, and therefore do not fully understand their obligations under the act. In some cases, the companies do not have a full-time office staff, and on occasion do not have a permanent place of business and are therefore difficult to locate. In some cases, the company concerned is inactive or in the process of being wound up, and it is difficult to locate a responsible officer of the corporation to furnish the information.
The Dominion Statistician is continuing his efforts to secure compliance with the reporting provisions of the act. The penalty under the act is not automatic, but prosecutions will be initiated of those officers and corporations that deliberately refuse to comply with the provisions of the act.



AIRPORTS-QUEBEC-LOCATION OF INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, I put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) a question that reads in part as follows:
-with regard to the selection of the site for the future international airport which is to he announced before the end of January. Can he tell us whether such decision will be taken by technocrats or by the cabinet?
The minister replied: By the cabinet.
January 20, 1969
4534	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Nevertheless, we are still convinced that the decision will be a purely political one which will not necessarily take into account the long and short term policies of the present government from the point of view, say, of decentralization.
Mr. Speaker, by the decision to construct an international airport in Drummondville, the federal government will solve the overcrowded Dorval international airport problem. At the same time, it will fulfill the landing possibility needs of modern aviation.
I think that the technocrats' report will clearly show that the representatives of the area are justified in making this application. On the other hand, the Quebec government officially endorses this project.
Simultaneously, the federal government will apply its decentralization policy on behalf of an unfavoured region.
Through the investment of public funds in a project of that importance, the federal government will encourage and open the door to private investments essential to banish a staggering local economy and promote prosperity. Never a region has met the needs of such a large project with so many positive arguments: technical arguments are undeniable, social and economical arguments are decisive.
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure to welcome a delegation from Drummondville in this regard. I have even distributed to each member the brief presented by the Chamber of Commerce, in order to draw their attention to the importance of the substantial investment resulting from the establishment of an international airport in Drummondville.
For several similar reasons and mainly because I am convinced that the Eastern Townships need some very special assistance to promote further economic development, the establishment of an international airport in Drummondville would intensively and continuously contribute to the progress of our region from the labour point of view, as well from the point of view of touristic, commercial and other means of communication. Better roads would lead to the site which is located at less than 30 minutes from Sherbrooke, less than 20 minutes from Victoria-ville and less than 30 minutes from Trois Rivieres which would be within easy reach thanks to the new bridge. The site is also located at less than 45 minutes from Montreal. Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Townships


have been left out in the cold for too long and, as I said, it is high time that each and everyone's political interests gave way to concern for the economic well-being of our area.
That is the reason why I put my question. However, I was very disappointed with the answer received. I expected a more precise, positive and progressive reply, which would have led us to hope that the ministry, on the advice of well-informed technocrats, would make an economic decision likely to solve the problems of this buffer area which I consider the center of the province of Quebec. Located between Quebec City and Montreal, it has been neglected far too long by the present government and the previous ones.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a forceful proposal. I suggest that hon. members acquaint themselves with the brief and the government take a clear and positive decision, meeting the expectations of some 800 municipalities. Through resolutions or other means, they have openly approved the establishment of the future international airport on the site suggested in the brief submitted by the Drummondville Chamber of Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, I am waiting of course for an answer from the parliamentary Secretary, and I hope he will tell us that the decision made will be an economic one. Indeed, I think that if the government shows that it is serious and makes an economic decision, it will have to choose Drummondville. Since they are dinning into our ears a decentralization policy, we will then see whether such a policy is only talk or if it is a serious one.
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), all I can say to the hon. member for Lotbiniere on this important question of the future International Airport is substantially similar to what the minister answered him last Friday, since the final decision has not yet been made.
The decision obviously rests with the federal government and they will make it. Of course, they will take into account the advice of technicians or experts in that field, who have submitted reports, and they will also have to consider the results of their talks with the authorities of the province of Quebec.
January 20, 1969

As the hon. member knows, there are several elements that must be considered before a final decision is reached, like the availability of air space, the topography, the means of transport, the noise that can affect urban areas. Among these elements, of course, there is the regional economic development, which is certainly important and which must also be taken into account.
DEBATES	4535
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to
adjourn the house is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.

January 20, 1969



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Marlborough House, London, S.W.l Tel. No. 01-839 3411

[Stage Direction]
Communique
Commonwealth Heads of Government met in London from 7-15 January. Botswana, Cyprus, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia were represented by their Presidents. Australia, Barbados, Britain, Canada, Ceylon, The Gambia, Guyana, India, Jamaica, Lesotho, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, New Zealand, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland and Trinidad and Tobago were represented by their Prime Ministers. Ghana was represented by the Deputy Chairman of the National Liberation Council; Kenya by its Minister of Finance; Nigeria by the Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council; and Pakistan by its Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Prime Minister of Britain was in the Chair.
2.	This was the largest meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government and one of the biggest consultative gatherings of Heads of Government from all parts of the world since the signature of the United Nations Charter. Heads of Government warmly greeted the President of Botswana, and the Prime Ministers of Barbados Lesotho, Mauritius and Swaziland, whose countries had become new members of the Commonwealth since the previous meeting.
3.	The Republic of Nauru has become the Commonwealth's first "special member", with the right to participate in all functional meetings and activities, and to be eligible for Commonwealth technical assistance. The Associated States of the West Indies, having reached a full measure of self-government although not fully independent, also take part in Commonwealth meetings and activities in fields within their constitutional competence. Heads of Government welcomed these arrangements which had been agreed since their last Meeting to enable very small States to participate in the work of the Commonwealth.
International Affairs
4.	Heads of Government were aware that they were meeting at a time of some misgivings about the effectiveness of international organizations and associations. They were unanimous that effective international cooperation was more than ever important. Any weaknesses and failures of international machinery were a reason to improve that machinery, not to despair of it. They expressed their continued support for the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter and their wish to contribute to efforts to strengthen the institutions and work of the United Nations, particularly its role in maintaining and promoting peace.
5.	They noted with pleasure the part played by Commonwealth countries in the development of regional co-operation. At the same time they recognized that exchanges of view and consultation within a wider association such as the Commonwealth offered one means by which its members could form a better understanding of one another's problems and attitudes and of their growing interdependence.
6.	With these considerations in mind, they reviewed some of the major issues and trends in the world political situation.
7.	They were in agreement that the principles of non-interference by one State in the internal affairs of another and of scrupulous respect for the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and political independence of all States are the very cornerstone of the structure of world peace.
8.	Heads of Government also felt that events in Czechoslovakia in violation of these principles and of the United Nations Charter tended to undermine respect for the territorial integrity and sovereign independence of all States, particularly small States.
9.	They considered that events in the Middle East in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Security Council resolutions emphasised the need for the establishment of a durable peace in the area as a matter of urgency. This could be achieved in accordance with the Security Council's Resolution of
January 20, 1969
[Stage Direction]
22 November, 1967. The Heads of Government expressed support tor the efforts of Dr. Jarring, the special representative of the UN Secretary-General, and urged all concerned to give him their fullest co-operation. They were encouraged to note the round of consultation now in progress among the four permanent members of the Security Council and urged these Governments to persist in their efforts to help bring about a settlement in accordance with the November 22 Resolution of the Security Council. While the role of major Powers was important, other countries especially those who have an interest in the reopening of the Suez Canal, including Commonwealth members could contribute towards a settlement.
10.	Recalling the views expressed at their Meetings in 1965 and 1966, Heads of Government welcomed the commencement of the Vietnam talks in Paris and expressed the hope that they would lead to discussions aimed at securing a just, lasting and genuine peace.
11.	It was the view of the majority of Heads of Government that the People's Republic of China has a right and a duty to participate in full in all the world's efforts towards peace. Most Heads of Government expressed the hope that the People's Republic of China would be able to take its rightful place in the international community, although some of them also stressed that this should be achieved without prejudicing the rights of the people of Taiwan to an independent existence if they chose. However, certain Prime Ministers of countries whose Governments recognised the Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan) reiterated their support of that Government's right to membership of the United Nations.
12.	Heads of Government, recalling the ending of Indonesia's policy of confrontation against Malaysia and Singapore in 1966, were encouraged by developments towards stability in Indonesia since their last meeting in 1966 and felt that this would contribute to the general stability and economic development of the region.
13.	The Meeting observed that difficulties between Malaysia and the Philippines arising out of the Philippine claim to Sabah had hampered the progress of regional cooperation in South East Asia. It expressed the hope that these difficulties could be resolved by peaceful means, upholding the right of selfdetermination which has been exercised by the people of Sabah.
14.	The Meeting also noted with concern and sympathy the difficulties which Guyana was experiencing in connection with Venezuela's claim to more than one-half of Guyana's territory. Acknowledging that threats to the territorial integrity of the State make inevitable the diversion of resources and energies from the constructive tasks of development, many members shared the view advanced by Guyana's Prime Minister that there was an urgent need for an international effort to secure the territorial integrity of every state-and especially of the small developing countries of the world.
15.	The Meeting expressed the hope that the recent achievement of independence by many small states would bring home to the international community the need to introduce special and effective measures to guarantee their territorial integrity.
16.	The Meeting considered that major barriers to progress on negotiated agreements in critical areas and fields would be overcome by significant progress in achieving detente and in co-operation between the major Powers. It was therefore considered essential that efforts to reduce tension and extend areas of peace and co-operation should continue.
17.	Heads of Government recalled that at their Meeting in September, 1966, they had expressed the view that events were throwing into ever sharper relief the need for firm and far reaching agreements on disarmament. They considered that the need for such agreements was even more urgent now than it was then, and hoped that the Eighteen National Disarmament Committee would resume consideration of this matter-
18.	The Meeting considered that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee should, as a matter of priority, explore possibilities of reaching agreement on effective measures designed to bring about a cessation of the nuclear arms race at a very early date. With this end in view a universally binding comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty was an urgent necessity. In this connection the British proposal to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee for a phased approach to a comprehensive test ban treaty was deserving of further study. They considered that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee should also seek to achieve a cut-off of the production of fissionable material for weapons purposes. Both these measures could be of great significance in halting the nuclear arms race. Mention was also made of the possibility
[Stage Direction]
January 20, 1969
that the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee might undertake the study of various proposals made for a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons. The Meeting gave particularly strong support to one of the recommendations made by the Conference of Non-Nuclear Weapon States (whose distinguished President was present at this Meeting) and repeated by the General Assembly of the United Nations to the Governments of the United States and the Soviet Union, that they should at an early date begin their bilateral discussions on the limitation of offensive strategic nuclear weapon delivery systems and systems of defence against ballistic missiles.
19.	The Meeting stressed again that effective disarmament must cover non-nuclear as well as nuclear weapons. In this connection the Heads of Government drew attention to the urgent need for action to deal with the threat presented by chemical and biological weapons and welcomed the British proposal to the Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee for a new convention prohibiting microbiological methods of warfare. They looked forward to the report on chemical and biological weapons which the Secretary-General of the United Nations had been requested to prepare; they hoped that this would make a valuable contribution to the consideration of arms control measures to deal with these weapons.
20.	Heads of Government recalled that at their Meeting in September 1966 they had stressed that while there was still time it was imperative to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. A step towards this goal was taken with the opening for signature of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons. In so far as the Treaty achieved this objective, most Heads of Government welcomed it. However, some Heads of Government had reservations on certain aspects of the Treaty including its effectiveness and the reliability of security guarantees for non-nuclear weapon states. It was recognised that the NonProliferation Treaty would not fulfil all the hopes set upon it unless progress could also be made by the nuclear powers towards effective measures of nuclear disarmament. It was also recognised that member states which were subjected to attack or threat of attack by either nuclear or non-nuclear weapons had the right to the protection afforded to them under the United Nations Charter.
21.	The Meeting heard a statement by Britain on the progress of the remaining
British dependencies towards self-government or independence. Twenty such dependencies were now left-many of them very small islands-and there had been recent constitutional advances in sixteen. It noted that in the case of British Honduras, the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar, the British Government stood ready to hold discussions with interested neighbouring countries, consonant with its basic principle, which was enshrined in the United Nations Charter, that the interests and wishes of the inhabitants must be paramount.
22.	The Prime Minister of Malta drew the attention of other Heads of Government to the situation arising from the rapidly increasing technological capacity to exploit the immense resources of the sea bed, which constitutes nearly three-quarters of the surface of the earth. They considered that the area of the sea bed and ocean floor beyond the limits of present national jurisdiction, for which a precise definition should be sought, should be accorded a special legal status as part of the common heritage of mankind, and as such should be reserved for peaceful purposes and for the orderly exploration and exploitation of its great resources, by such appropriate international machinery as is agreed acting for the common benefit of all States, irrespective of their geographical location, and taking into special consideration the interests and needs of the developing countries.
23.	The Meeting welcomed the initiative of the Government of Malta which led to the appointment in December 1968 by the General Assembly of the United Nations of a Committee on the peaceful uses of the sea bed and the ocean floor beyond the limits of national jurisdiction, and declared its support for the committee's work.
Rhodesia
24.	The Meeting had a full discussion on the problem of Rhodesia. Heads of Government agreed that there were several reasons why Rhodesia was so important in Commonwealth consultations. The legal authority and the responsibility for the terms on which it would be brought to independence rested with Britain, a Commonwealth member. The attempts of Commonwealth countries adjacent to Rhodesia to establish non-racial societies and prosperous economies were jeopardised by the growing threat of race conflict within the region. But the overriding reason was that problems such as this involved principles
January 20, 1969
[Stage Direction]
of racial justice and equality and the right of all peoples to self determination which are embodied in the United Nations Charter and in the Declaration of Human Rights. These matters went to the heart of the Commonwealth relationship and were therefore of deep concern to all Commonwealth members.
25.	The Meeting recalled that, for these reasons, Rhodesia had been an important subject of discussion at recent Commonwealth conferences, and Heads of Government reiterated the principles and objectives affirmed at their four previous meetings.
26.	They also reviewed developments since their last Meeting, noting that the illegal regime had continued acts of political repression against the African majority population, and that there were increasing trends towards an apartheid system in Rhodesia.
27.	The constitutional proposals drawn up on board HMS Fearless were discussed. Most Heads of Government emphasized their view that these proposals were unacceptable as the constitution of an independent Rhodesia, and should therefore be withdrawn. They considered that to transfer sovereignty to a racial minority as the result of an agreement reached with that minority would settle nothing, if the settlement was not freely accepted by the people of Rhodesia as a whole including the four million African Rhodesians and seen by the international community, especially the independent African countries to be so accepted. Otherwise internal strife, and outside support for guerilla activities would increase, with the inevitable risk of increasing instability and eventual race war. They stated that historical experience suggested that once independence was achieved, a minority in power could not be prevented from changing a constitution in whatever way they might wish. The only effective guarantees of political and civil rights lay in vesting those rights in the people as a whole.
28.	The Meeting recalled the pledge given by the British Prime Minister, following discussion at the Commonwealth Conference in September, 1966, that independence would not be granted before majority rule was achieved (NIBMR). The British Prime Minister stated that although the Fearless Proposals remained on the table, there had been no change in the British Government's policy on NIBMR. The Meeting welcomed the statement that the British Government's policy on NIBMR remained unchanged, but most Heads of Government reiterated their position that the Fearless Proposals should be withdrawn.
29.	Some Heads of Government reiterated their call on the British Government to use force to quell the rebellion in Rhodesia. The British Prime Minister explained the reasons why the British Government regarded the use of force as wrong and impracticable.
30.	The British Prime Minister said that he had taken careful note of the view expressed by most other Heads of Government that the Fearless Proposals ought to be withdrawn. But he could not himself accept this view since he considered that it would be right, if it proved possible, to give the people of Rhodesia as a whole an opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not they wished for a settlement which would be fully consistent with the Six Principles laid down by successive British Governments. Any such settlement would need to be clearly shown to be the wish of the Rhodesian people as a whole. If that took place, he would consult his Commonwealth colleagues about the NIBMR commitments. He emphasized, however, that a settlement based on the Six Principles would not be possible if it were shown that there could be no genuine test of its acceptability in present circumstances in Rhodesia.
31.	It was agreed that any settlement must depend for its validity upon the democratically ascertained wishes of the people of Rhodesia as a whole. The process for ascertaining their views was the British Government's responsibility, but the test of the acceptability of any proposed settlement would need to be made in a manner which would carry conviction in the Commonwealth and in the international community generally, so that its results would be accepted as truly reflecting the wishes of the people of Rhodesia. Many Heads of Government urged that this could only be carried out through the normal democratic process of election or referendum, and doubted whether adequate safeguards for free political expression and verification of the results could be provided so long as the rebel government remained in power. The Meeting noted the British Prime Minister's statement that it would be open to the proposed Royal Commission to say that in the circumstances prevailing in Rhodesia, no genuine assessment was possible of the acceptability of the proposed settlement to the people of Rhodesia as a whole and that, further, if the Royal Commission felt themselves unable to adjudicate on the acceptability or otherwise of the proposals to the people of
[Stage Direction]
January 20. 1969
Rhodesia as a whole, they would be free to recommend any alternative method, including a referendum, which in their view would adequately test Rhodesian opinion.
32.	The Meeting had before it a review of the working of economic sanctions prepared for it by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee. The Meeting agreed that the comprehensive mandatory sanctions were having some effect. It was important to strengthen the enforcement of these and other pressures on the illegal regime, and to intensify them wherever possible, in order to bring about an acceptable political settlement. Heads of Government therefore affirmed their support for the Supervisory Committee of the United Nations Security Council and for the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee, which they requested to continue to keep the situation under review.
33.	Notwithstanding some differences of opinion on method, Heads of Government remained unanimous on the ultimate objectives to be sought in Rhodesia. They were more than ever resolved that, whatever the time needed to reverse it, the seizure of power by a small racial minority could be neither recognised nor tolerated. Concerted international action was being steadily built up particularly through the United Nations and the Commonwealth and Heads of Government pledged their continuing support for all efforts to strengthen and extend this and to continue to assist Rhodesian Africans in preparing themselves to take their rightful place in the Government and administration of their country. The special problems encountered by Botswana and Zambia arising from the Rhodesia crisis were recognised.
34.	The British Prime Minister undertook to continue to consult Commonwealth members on the issue of Rhodesia.
Southern Africa
35.	The Meeting considered other problems in Southern Africa. It reaffirmed the condemnation expressed at previous meetings of the policy of apartheid of the South African Government-a policy totally abhorrent to world opinion. It expressed serious concern at the continued refusal of South Africa to accept its international obligations in respect of the territory of South West Africa.
36.	The Meeting deeply regretted that Portugal continued to deny the right of self-determination to the inhabitants of her colonial territories in Africa and called on Portugal to concede that right without delay. Some Heads
of Government felt that the situation in Southern Africa if continued, would endanger peace and security and pointed to the threats which they felt were posed to their countries by the armed forces of South Africa and Portugal.
Migration
36A. Informal discussions took place outside the meeting between some Commonwealth countries on certain problems of migration between those Commonwealth countries. The Secretary-General was requested by the countries engaged in these discussions to examine in consultation with representatives of those countries general principles relating to short and long term movement of people between their countries and to consider the possibility of exploring ways and means of studying this subject on a continuing basis with a view to providing relevant information to those Governments.
36B. The Prime Ministers re-affirmed the declaration made in communiques of 1964 and 1965 that for all Commonwealth Governments it should be an objective of policy to build in each country a structure of society which offers equal opportunity and non-discrimination for all its people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The Commonwealth should be able to exercise constructive leadership in the application of democratic principles in a manner which will enable the people of each country of different racial and cultural groups to exist and develop as free and equal citizens.
Economic Affairs
37.	Heads of Government held a general discussion on the world economic situation and broadly reviewed recent developments and trends. They agreed that the representative character of the Commonwealth and its tradition of informed and sympathetic interest in the problems of development make it a most valuable forum for constructive discussion and a useful instrument for co-operative endeavour.
38.	They noted that early last year, in New Delhi during UNCTAD II, Commonwealth Ministers had exchanged views on some of the problems affecting trade and development of member countries, and that more recently, Commonwealth Finance Ministers at their annual meeting held in London had a full discussion of the world economic situation with special reference to international monetary problems, development and aid.
January 20, 1969
[Stage Direction]
39.	Heads of Government were concerned that the gap between the rich and poor was widening, but were encouraged by growing recognition of the increasing inter-dependence of nations. Greater co-operative action was vital to ensure economic progress and prosperity on which stability and peace so largely depend. Postponement of adequate and united efforts would lead to greater political and economic problems.
40.	They took note of the fact that developing countries of the Commonwealth were making efforts to help themselves. They were steadily laying the ground-work of future self-sustained growth by paying increasing attention to agriculture, education, population control and administrative and institutional reforms. It was therefore hoped that if they were assisted by appropriate international measures, they would be in a position during the decade of the 1970's to achieve higher rates of economic growth.
41.	Heads of Government noted the growing movement towards greater regional cooperation among the developing countries of the Commonwealth. This represented a valuable form of self-help on the part of the developing countries.
42.	Heads of Government recognized that the results of UNCTAD II had been very disappointing to the developing countries. While there had been agreement on the need to evolve an international policy for development and a global strategy to implement it, little progress had been made in achieving this. On the other hand UNCTAD II had mapped out certain promising lines of approach.
43.	They stressed the need to give practical effect to the unanimous agreements reached in principle at UNCTAD II. They expressed the hope that it would soon be possible to conclude successfully the negotiations on a scheme of generalized preferences which would be of benefit to all developing countries and which would provide compensation for the less developed countries whose export trade might be adversely affected by the introduction of such a scheme. They agreed that close and continuous consultations among Commonwealth countries would be necessary during the consideration of the scheme of generalized preference. They emphasised the importance of continuing consultation at the Trade and Development Board and other organs of UNCTAD and asked the Secretary-General to maintain close contacts with these
and other international agencies in order to keep these developments under review.
44.	Heads of Government agreed that the first Development Decade had fallen short of expectations in achieving practical results. They hoped, however, that the experience gained would help in the identification of areas of development and the strategy to which urgent attention needs to be directed with a view to achieving greater concrete results during the second Development Decade.
45.	It was recognised that the terms of trade had moved against some countries of the Commonwealth who depend to a great extent on the export of primary products. More orderly and satisfactory markets for primary products were crucial for Commonwealth countries. Recognising the present unsatisfactory state of major export markets for many primary products, Heads of Government stressed the need for further efforts by Commonwealth countries in international forums to secure improved conditions for international commodity trade, including better access to markets in both developed and developing countries and equitable and stable prices for primary products. They expressed gratification at the extension of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement which has always been of special interest to the Commonwealth producer countries. They welcomed the recent conclusion of the International Sugar Agreement and expressed the hope that those governments which had not already signed it would do so. They further hoped that other commodities of special economic importance to Commonwealth countries would be covered similarly by suitable international arrangements which arrangements would be pursued and be supported by Commonwealth countries.
46.	In this connection, they noted recent developments in the negotiations for the conclusion of an International Agreement on Cocoa. They urged all parties to the negotiations to intensify their efforts so as to reach a speedy agreement, and on the progress of which the Secretary-General should keep members fully informed.
47.	Heads of Government welcomed the liberalization of trade in respect of manufactured products consequent on the conclusion of the Kennedy Round of negotiations, and hoped that this process of trade liberalization would be carried further in respect of all products. They regretted however that these
[Stage Direction]
January 20, 1969
negotiations had produced no significant benefits for most developing countries. They expressed the hope that continuing efforts would be made under the auspices of GATT and UNCTAD to enable developing countries to secure improved access for their products to international markets with a view to increasing their foreign exchange earnings, while making every effort to increase trade among themselves.
48.	They stressed the dangers of excessive protectionism in a number of Foreign industrialized countries for agricultural products of export interest to Commonwealth countries.
49.	While it was recognised that Commonwealth trade must be seen in the larger context of global trade of which it was a vital part, they agreed there was continuing scope for the expansion of Commonwealth trade and for this purpose there was need to strengthen the well-established links amongst Commonwealth members.
50.	Heads of Government took note of the Secretary-General's report that, in pursuance of an earlier decision, the Secretariat had begun a study on the feasibility of Commonwealth co-operation to assist in trade promotion. They looked forward to the completion of this study.
51.	The Meeting took note of the special difficulties of Lesotho and other African landlocked Commonwealth countries. These countries expressed the hope that all concerned would find it possible to accede to or ratify the international convention on the transit trade of landlocked countries. Heads of Government hoped that all countries concerned would make every effort to provide adequate transit facilities to the trade of such landlocked countries.
52.	Heads of Government reiterated the importance of continuing close consultation by the British Government with Commonwealth Governments in regard to developments of interest to them concerning the British application for entry into the European Economic Community.
53.	In discussing the international monetary situation, Heads of Government stressed the importance of restoring stability in world payments-and of adapting the world monetary system to meet evolving needs. They stressed the need for providing adequate international liquidity for implementing and activating as early as practicable the scheme for Special Drawing Rights through the International Monetary Fund to supplement
reserve assets. They regretted that it had not been possible as yet to get the necessary broad international agreement on a special link between international action to increase liquidity and the needs of developing countries. They hoped that further consideration would be given to establishing such a link.
54.	They expressed the hope that more liberal trade policies would follow from improvements in the international payments system.
55.	Some Heads of Government felt that Commonwealth countries should call for a world monetary conference, open to all members of the I.M.F., to reappraise the World Monetary System since Bretton Woods and to make recommendation for its improvement, and that there should be a Commonwealth Meeting prior to such a Conference. Others while sympathising with these objectives felt that it would be inappropriate to attempt to achieve them through such a conference and that it would be better to continue official discussions through existing channels.
56.	The meeting discussed international assistance for economic development, and noted with concern that the net transfer of resources from industrialized to developing countries had stagnated at a level which was inadequate to facilitate an acceptable rate of economic development in the developing countries. A critical situation was emerging for a number of countries because of the burden of debt servicing. Heads of Government expressed the hope that countries which had not already done so would be in a position to signify their acceptance of an early date for complying with the UNCTAD resolution on the target of 1% of gross national product at market prices. They stressed the urgency of the replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association and expressed the hope that all countries concerned would follow the lead already given by some in effecting such replenishment.
57.	Heads of Government noted with approval the recent tendency on the part of some Commonwealth countries to soften the terms of their loans which they are extending to the less developed Commonwealth countries. They considered that Commonwealth donor countries should take the lead in seeking further improvements in the terms of international aid generally, and hoped that donor Governments would view sympathetically in appropriate cases the granting of more flexible terms.
January 20, 1969
[Stage Direction]
58.	Heads of Government expressed the hope that the consideration of the scheme of supplementary financing would lead to early results of benefit to developing countries.
59.	They welcomed the appointment of an International Commission by the World Bank to review the total aid experience of the past two decades and to make recommendations for future aid programmes, and were particularly gratified that a former colleague, The Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson, was presiding over the Commission's work.
Commonwealth Co-operation
60.	Heads of Government reviewed the extensive range of co-operation which exists among Commonwealth countries in such areas as technical assistance, education, science, medicine, law and many other functional fields. Such co-operation is facilitated and rendered more fruitful by the advantages the Commonwealth association offers-a common working language, similar traditions in government, administration, educational methods, and the organisation of the professions. With the increasing membership of the Commonwealth and the potentially wider areas of co-operation, they recognised the importance of seeking ways and means of achieving more effective co-operation among members in all fields.
61.	Much was being done through bilateral arrangements between member countries. The Meeting noted that intra-Commonwealth official bilateral assistance, which accounts on the average for about 85% of the total of such assistance provided by Commonwealth members in all developing countries, had increased in 1967 and 1968, and they hoped that this would continue to grow.
62.	They also reaffirmed the value of programmes of specifically Commonwealth effort in certain fields. An example would be increasing application of the principle of third-party financing, as a useful mechanism for bringing qualified experts and important tasks together quickly and efficiently. Third-party financing, by which experts from one country can be financed wholly or in part by another, can significantly enlarge the pool of expertise available for technical assistance arrangements by drawing on skills available in developing countries. These skills, moreover, are often of particular relevance to the needs of other developing countries. The Meeting agreed that early consideration should be given to the extension of the principle of third-party financing to education, training and consultations. This would allow
students to be trained in surroundings and under conditions more appropriate to their future employment, and in this way ease the problem of the brain-drain.
63.	The Meeting noted several examples of mutual assistance which had already grown up among developing members of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Programme of Technical Co-operation, established within the Secretariat the previous year and on which the Secretary-General submitted a progress report, was a further step in building on the special advantages which the Commonwealth affords. A number of them underlined the particular usefulness of the Programme to the smaller members. They noted that a review of this Programme is to be carried out later this year.
64.	The Meeting also considered a number of proposals for strengthening Commonwealth co-operation in specific fields.
65.	They agreed that the nature and work of the Commonwealth should be more widely known in member countries. They approved in principle the proposal by Guyana for a Commonwealth Information Programme, and authorised the Secretary-General to appoint an Information Officer and to undertake in consultation with Governments a study of the implications of a programme as proposed.
66.	Heads of Government also welcomed in principle the proposals submitted by Pakistan on co-operation in the fields of mass communication and education and asked the Secretary-General to undertake studies in detail and in consultation with Commonwealth governments.
67.	The Meeting had before it three proposals by Britain for increased Commonwealth co-operation. The first was for extension of co-operation in the legal field. This proposal involved the establishment of a small Legal Section in the Secretariat, which was agreed; and a conference on legal education, to which further consideration should be given.
68.	The second British proposal was for regional centres for the teaching of English and the teaching of science, which was welcomed in principle, and which it was agreed should be further considered by the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee and the Secretariat.
69.	The third British proposal was for a series of studies on the problems of youth. The Meeting asked the Secretary-General to examine its feasibility taking into account the work in this field undertaken by other international organizations.
[Stage Direction]
January 20, 1969
70.	In addition the Meeting discussed proposals for a Commonwealth Book Development Programme designed to assist developing Commonwealth countries to obtain books and journals for educational and research purposes. The Meeting asked the Secretary-General to undertake studies in detail in conjunction with the Commonwealth Education Liaison Committee, convening expert working parties where necessary. The Secretary-General was asked to include in these studies the implications of the ratification of the Protocol to the Berne Copyright Convention.
71.	Heads of Government took note of the Second Report of the Secretary-General and the Report of the Commonwealth Foundation.
72.	The Meeting also expressed appreciation of the valuable contribution to the strengthening of Commonwealth co-operation and understanding being made by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. As an independent association of Parliamentarians, it provides unique opportunity for the sharing of experience, the discussion of common problems and the development of personal links to the benefit both of its members and of the people they represent.
73.	They expressed high appreciation with the work of the Commonwealth Secretary-General and his colleagues which they thought more than adequately justified the decision to establish the Secretariat.


[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 3, 19B8