1969-07-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, recently I undertook to make a statement on the takeover of Royal Securities Corporation by Merrill, Lynch and Associates, and on the implications of this action. Since then my OiTicials have been in touch with representatives of the Investment Dealers' Association and of certain stock exchanges.
The I.D.A. and two of the main stocK exchanges have announced that they are going to study together the whole subject of foreign ownership and control of member firms and to decide what policies and courses of action they themselves should follow within their institutional jurisdictions. They have also made it clear that pending this study they will defer consideration of new applications for membership from foreign-based brokers and investment bankers as well as any new applications for approval of purchases by foreign interests of Canadian investment firms now holding membership in any of these industry organizations.
I welcome this initiative. I believe that the subject merits such a study. The government will follow with great interest its course and outcome. We will, of course, actively pursue our own review of the situation as it affects the national interest. This review will include a study of limitations which might be placed on the access of foreign-owned firms to the credit facilities available to money market dealers.
I do not believe it would be appropriate nor have we presently the power to stop the sale of Royal Securities Corporation to Merrill, Lynch; nor do I believe it would be appropriate to request the Bank of Canada to amend at this time their credit arrangement with Royal Securities as a money market
dealer. However I feel we should be free to bring them and any other firms in a similar position within the ambit of any general limitations which may result from our review.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as I understand th? minister he is not taking any c-ction but is reserving the position that whatever will be done can be applied to the firms in question. I am not going to quarrel with that position but I do believe that the kind of inquiry the minister has in mind should go much further than he has indicated.
In an earlier debate we on this side of the house made a number of concrete proposals with regard to this kind of question. There is of course the matter of positive encouragement to Canadians to control their own corporations, and I would hope something would be forthcoming in this regard in the minister's white paper. The suggestion has also been made that we might give some leadership in encouraging international study of international aspects of international corporations. Such an inquiry might serve a useful purpose in providing us with a good deal of information as well as reducing some of the jingoism and nationalistic emotion that have sometimes been introduced into some of our inquiries and discussions. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it most necessary to emphasize that it is time to stop these hesitant, rather fumbling steps in the dark, staggering from instance to instance of this kind of difficulty. It is time we took a much more co-ordinated over-all approach.
I certainly do not want to see anything done to discourage foreign enterprise in this country because I recognize its value here, but on the other hand there are certain key sectors over which we ought to maintain control, and it is important that we outline an integrated and comprehensive approach to this problem.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
There is at present a patchwork of measures in various sectors of the economy to prevent or discourage foreign takeovers or encourage Canadian ownership and control. But we must have a more coherent approach in contrast to the sort of ad hoc approach we

July 2. 1969
Finance
have adopted. I am sure the first step is to decide what are the key sectors of our economic and social structures, the ownership and control of which are of critical significance to our national development.
I suggest there should be an inquiry in respect of the industries affected. I believe they ought to have an opportunity to be heard. Perhaps a committee of this house should hear representations and examine the effectiveness of the present legislation, regulations, guidelines or policy as applied in the various sectors. Then hopefully the government could announce a rational policy relating to ownership and control in the country generally. After examination and public discussion of some document presented by the government the house might consider any necessary legislation.
I believe it is only in this way that we are likely to develop a sensible approach and a sensible set of policies relating to economic and cultural sovereignty, if we are to think in these terms. This is the kind of action which would produce policies that would carry general support in the country, and the kind of action which would be meaningful if one really wants public participation in our political system.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it would be an understatement for me to say that this announcement by the minister is extremely disappointing. Many members and many other people in Canada have been disturbed by the revelations of the Watkins report which show the increasing takeover of the Canadian economy, but at least those financial institutions have not been interfered with adversely by reason of the steps taken by the previous minister of finance to stop the takeover of the Mercantile Bank by Citibank of New York. We at least thought that the financial institutions were free from foreign interference.
When the Royal Securities Corporation was taken over by Merrill, Lynch and Associates the minister expressed some concern, as did the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Ever since that time the minister has been promising to make a statement. I understand a statement was sent to the offices of the leaders of the various parties on Friday but was recalled. I do not know whether the minister intended to make a more forthright statement and got cold feet, but what we have now is a nonstatement. It states first that the government is going to do nothing at all about the takeover of the Royal Securities Corporation and, 
secondly, that it is not even going to discontinue allowing them access to the credit arrangements of the Bank of Canada. They enjoyed this privilege along with 14 other investment houses, and now are to have this access to the facilities of the Bank of Canada.
It seems to me appalling that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) intends to take no action at all. The second and more serious statement in this matter is that the minister at the present time does not propose to take any action to prevent further takeovers, other than to watch with interest the investigation being conducted by the Investment Dealers Association. He says of course that his department will pursue actively their own review of the situation as it affects the national interest.
Surely at some point these studies should result in some action by the government. We had a long investigation by the Watkins Commission. We have had the report of the Watkins Commission, but no action has been forthcoming. Now we have the beginning of a takeover of the Canadian financial institutions, and the best the Minister of Finance can offer us is that the investment dealers, who have an axe to grind that is distinctly different from the national interest of this country, are to make an investigation. Meantime we are to wait until we hear the result of their investigation, before we will know what the minister intends to do. The Canadian parliament must recognize how important this matter is. First of all foreign control of our financial institutions will hinder our capacity to promote economic growth.
We speak a great deal about lacking funds in Canada, but the fact is that in mutual funds alone, from December 31, 1962 to December 31, 1967 United States and foreign assets increased from $144.1 million to $1,008,200,000 an increase of 600 per cent in their holdings of foreign assets, mostly United States. In the same period of time their domestic assets increased by only 83 per cent.
It is increasingly apparent that there are investment houses in Canada which would like to get access to the United States market but find it difficult to do so, and are now prepared either to sell out or merge with United Stated financial houses in order to get access to that market and to funnel Canadian savings into that market to purchase United States equities. How can we talk about the need for economic growth when we are allowing Canadian funds to pour out of this country?
July 2, 1969

The second thing is that unless the Canadian government is prepared to take a firm hold of the financial institutions in this country they are lessening their ability to cope with the problems of inflation. We are ceasing increasingly to be masters in our own house.
I	want to say to the minister that the statement he has made today will disappoint a great many people. Only yesterday was the 102nd anniversary of Confederation and all over this country people were standing up to sing "O Canada, we stand on guard for thee". The best the minister can tell us about the takeover of financial institutions is that all the government intends to do is wait until the Investment Dealers Association has made a survey. I say to the minister this is a shameful betrayal of his responsibility as the Minister of Finance of this country.


Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I also agree with the hon. members of the opposition that it is time to assume our responsibilities in order to settle our problems once for all.
I	think that it is completely abnormal that a country like Canada should continue to lend abroad while borrowing in Germany and in the United States at 7 per cent, thus bleeding the Canadian economy.
As for brokers who are selling our country piecemeal abroad, more stringent legislation is needed to control that practice. I have always wondered why this house does not pass legislation enabling Canadians to continue to hold 51 per cent of the shares of Canadian companies and to restrict the percentage of other countries to a maximum of 49 per cent. Thus, Canadians could have real control over their economy.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is time to influence investment dealers to make them embrace a nationalism which will make it possible to commemorate other anniversaries of the Confederation as we did yesterday, so that Canada will become a great country from an economic point of view.



PROCEDURE


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government Notices of
Motions:
June 26, 1969-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Orders of the House be amended by adding the following new Standing Orders immediately after Standing Order 75:
[Stage Direction]
Debating Time Allotment
75a. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that there is agreement among the representatives of all parties to allot a specified number of days or hours to the proceedings at one or more stages of any public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of such agreed allocation; and every such motion shall be decided forthwith, without debate or amendment.
75b. When a Minister of the Crown, from his place in the House, states that a majority of the representatives of the several parties, including that of the Government, have come to an agreement in respect of a proposed allotment of days or hours for the proceedings at any stage of the passing of a public bill, he may propose a motion, without notice, setting forth the terms of the said proposed allocation; provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages of a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
75c. A Minister of the Crown who from his place in the House at a previous sitting has stated that an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 75a or 75b in respect of proceedings at the stage at which a public bill was then under consideration either in the House or in any committee and has given notice at that sitting of his intention so to do may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day and provided that for the purposes of this standing order an allocation may be proposed in one motion to cover the proceedings at both the report and the third reading stages on a bill if that motion is consistent with the provisions of Standing Order 75(13). During the consideration of any such motion no member may speak more than once or longer than ten minutes. Not more than two hours after the commencement of proceedings thereon, Mr. Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to put to Your Honour as briefly as I can the substance of the complaints I have which were mentioned by myself and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) last week when we indicated we had objections we hoped Your Honour would sustain in respect of this particular motion. I find it is essential to argue the point at this time before the house becomes seized of the motion under Standing Order 21, under which it becomes a government order. Might I just briefly retrace the steps which have led up to this point of order now being raised by myself.
Debating Time Allotment [DOT] (2:20 p.ra.)
On June 20 the chairman of the procedure committee introduced the report of that committee dealing with proposed Standing Order 75a, 75b, and 75c. On June 26 the President of the Privy Council made a statement in the house in which he said in part:
I might indicate that I plan to give notice later today of a motion dealing with the question of time allocation in conformity with the decision of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
That statement referred to a decision which had been tabled by the filing of the committee's report and which was then the subject of a notice by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) that he proposed to move concurrence in the report. I call to Your Honour's attention the words used by the President of the Privy Council:
-in conformity with the decision of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
This indicates that the minister intended to move a motion which would be virtually the same as that which was the subject of the report of the committee dealing with proposed Standing Order 75a, 75b and 75c. Proposed Standing Order 75a deals with the unanimous approval of all parties before proceeding with a time allocation order; 75b deals with a provision that a majority of the parties might make a decision which could then be made the subject of an order of the house; 75c, which is the ill-starred and illegitimate by-product of the mating of proposed Standing Order 16a and closure, was introduced by the committee in almost precisely the same terms as the motion of the President of the Privy Council, with two exceptions.
I think I am entitled to call to the attention of Your Honour and the house that the committee report, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was the report of the government members on that committee and was subject to their approval. The President of the Privy Council, as a member of that committee, provided for these things; but the report did not provide precisely for the type of majority the government wanted. The government wanted only a majority of which it is a part. Therefore the proposed change of the President of the Privy Council makes this alteration, that in making a decision which can later become the subject of an order of the house, a majority of the parties of the house must include the government.

July 2, 1969
I think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that because of this omission or default on the part of the committee's report, which is in fact the report of the government, the President of the Privy Council introduced his motion. If he had not, the government would have been in the unfortunate position, if it desired to amend the committee's report, of asking that the report be sent back to the committee. This would be a very serious1 state of affairs for the government.
I can recall a most distinguished member of this house saying last fall that the opposition had become caught in a trap in connection with procedure matters. I would point out that as I watch the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Privy Council floundering around in this net today I am reminded of these words of Sir Walter Scott: Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: If Your Honour accepted the motion of the President of the Privy Council, which would then become a government order, we would have the extraordinary situation of there being on the order paper two motions which are the same but for the exceptions I have mentioned. Which one do we debate? Which one does Your Honour accept? What is the position to be?
On that basis I refer Your Honour to the practice in the United Kingdom which has been imported into this house by our Standing Order 1. Many years ago it was held in the United Kingdom that a private member's placing of a simple motion on the order paper would have the effect of forestalling a motion of a similar kind, even though it were introduced by the government.
I think the classic example was where a private member placed a motion on the order paper dealing with the conduct of the government in the Boer war in the 1900's. He then sailed away to the war in Africa, and while he was absent it was impossible for the government to introduce a measure along the same lines. This is the kind of situation with which we may have to deal here.
There are precedents which I wish to cite to Your Honour briefly, because I am sure Your Honour will want to give some consideration to this issue. Redlich, 3rd edition, deals with this particular matter, and at pages 222 and 223 lays it out very specifically with regard to the whole conduct of the house and of the Speaker in a matter of this kind.

July 2, 1969	COMMONS
He relates there to the fact that the Speaker is given discretion to make a choice. If the motion which is first on the order paper is one which is likely to be debated under the rules of the house, Your Honour should give effect to that fact, allow that motion to be debated, and not let it be blocked by the government introducing another motion.
That is carried forward in the 17th edition of May at page 399 where it is said that a matter already appointed for consideration by the house cannot be anticipated by a motion, an amendment or a no lice of motion as long as it remains upon the order paper, whether for a specified day or not. This is precisely the situation which prevails in this house at the present time.
This has been followed in our house. Citation No. 131 in Beauchesne's 4th edition provides:
In determining whether a discussion is out ol order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the house within a reasonable time.
Certainly the notice of motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) is before the house and can be debated at any time. Until June 26 there was every belief that this was a motion which the house was going to debate.
Finally, I wish to refer Your Honour to the most succinct and clear statement on this issue, contained in "The House of Commons at Work" by Eric Taylor which, I suggest is pertinent and right on the nose. The statement appears at page 99 and reads as follows:
There is, finally, the rule against anticipation. Debate must not cover the ground of a motion which is on the order paper, and likely to be discussed. Formerly, even the fact that a motion stood on the order paper was enough to prevent debate on the subject it dealt with, and until recently private members who wished to prevent the discussion of a particular topic made a practice of putting down motions which they never brought up for debate. Nowadays, however, unless there is a reasonable chance of a motion coming up for debate, it cannot prevent members raising the same subject on another motion.
That is what I would ask Your Honour to hold before you when you come to make a ruling.
So much for the precedents. Let me point out that, rather like the pilots in the early days in my country, the house and Your Honour, with these new rules, are flying collectively by the seat of their pants in the matter of making decisions and rulings on the new practices upon which we have embarked.

Debating Time Allotment This is not the first instance with regard to a committee report. I need only to go back to the report of the Transport Committee and to other reports which, properly considered and discussed in the committee and later brought into the house, have been ignored.
The government is divided. On June 18 last the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), dealing with amendments to the official languages bill, took the position that he could not support an amendment proposed by this side of the house because it had already been dealt with by a committee and the committee had come to a decision. Under those conditions the government was so struck with the importance of the committee report that they had decided to follow the views of the committee.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just want to suggest to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) that in trying to oversimplify my remarks he is distorting them.


Gerald William Baldwin: Usually I find it difficult to oversimplify the remarks of the Minister of Justice.


Edgar John Benson: But you find it easy to distort them.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: What is your position to be, Mr. Speaker? The committee structure was to have been the foundation of the new order through which the just society would be ushered into this country. Here we find an important committee report being ignored. Logic, reason, persuasion, have gone out of the window because the Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council and their colleagues have accepted the rule of the bulldozer. From now on, apparently, the rules belong to the government, and the house has no interest in them. I sometimes wonder what will be the value of the Committee on Procedure and Organization if this is the way in which recommendations are to be considered.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: It is a refreshing change that for once the hon. member has been citing some parliamentary authorities. One recalls that his previous guide in connection with these matters was the Canada Year Book. Not only can he cite that publication but he can cite Sir Walter Scott. I am glad he has learned a little bit about the rules. Perhaps I,
Debating Time Allotment too, could make a quotation, this one from Pope: A little learning is a dangerous thing.


An hon. Member:: You have a hell of a lot.


Mr. Hees:: Now you have exhausted your capacity for humour, let us get on with it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: While I may have exhausted my capacity for humour-


George Harris Hees: This is going to be terrific, Donald. I hope your wife is here today to hear that. She would be proud of you. What a meatball!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It has been argued that if I move my motion today I will be anticipating the motion of which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has given notice, and that consequently my motion cannot be admitted.
This argument is based on the assumption that whenever a motion would bring on a debate and a decision by the house which might be brought on by another motion of which notice had been given, the former motion cannot be moved. But in the case under consideration, I would point out first of all that there is no question of supplanting a proceeding which has already begun. May states that a motion must not anticipate a matter already appointed for consideration by the house, whether it be a bill or an adjourned debate upon a motion. This citation appears on the same page as that to which the hon. member referred, though he did not quote it. In this case the motion has not even been moved. If the hon. member had moved his motion, and if a time had been appointed for the resumption of an adjourned debate upon that motion, the situation would obviously be different.
All that the house now has before it from the hon. member is a notice of motion. I raise this question: How can either Your Honour or the house know whether it is still the hon. member's intention to move that motion?


Mr. Aiken:: I gather that it is not.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member strengthens my point by raising a doubt as to whether it will ever be moved. I cannot guarantee that it will, nor can you, Mr. Speaker. Nor can one predict when that motion would be called. Indeed, there seems to be a certain disposition in the house-and I refer to the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this regard as 
July 2. 1969
reported at page 10699 of Hansard-that the motion by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton should not only not be moved but that it should be dropped.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: See! I think it is clear from what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said and from what the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka has said that there is reason to doubt that the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton will go forward.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Of course not; he has been bulldozed by the government to drop it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: To ask that my motion, which I am quite prepared to move today provided the house disposes of the official languages bill, be prohibited because at some future time the hon. member may decide to move his motion, is to engage in dilatory speculation. Neither you, Mr. Speaker, nor the house should be asked to make decisions on such a basis.
Referring to the authorities, both Beau-chesne, at the place indicated by the hon. member, and May make it clear that the decisive consideration involved here in deciding whether or not a proceeding already begun by a motion in the house can be supplanted by proceedings on another motion is whether or not the supplanting provisions, that is to say, the subsequent proceedings, will be at least as efficient as those supplanted. Here May says at page 399:
The rule against anticipation, which applies to other proceedings as well as motions, is that a matter must not be anticipated if it is contained in a more effective form of proceeding than the proceeding by which it is sought to be anticipated, but it may be anticipated if it is contained in an equally or less effective form.
In other words, when there is a conflict between the proceedings already begun and supplanting proceedings the test is the comparative efficiency of the proceedings. The question is: Will the new proceedings be at least as satisfactory for the house as those they will supplant? In the present instance, if the hon. member had moved his motion the question would be whether my proposed motion would enable the house to debate the subject of time allocation as effectively as his motion. The proceedings on my motion would not need to be better. All that would be necessary would be that my motion should

July 2, 1969	COMMONS
bring on proceedings at least as effective as those already in progress on his motion.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that my motion would bring the house into direct contact with the subject of time allocation. It would permit the house itself to amend the proposed new standing orders. In the case of the motion of which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has given notice, the subject of time allocation would be approached by the house only indirectly, as the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, that is, by considering whether or not to concur in the report of a committee. In a proceeding of that kind the house itself would not be able to amend the proposed new standing orders. It would be able only to send the report back to the committee for amendment.
We now find ourselves in a situation the reverse of that in which we were placed last December. At that time, and for good reasons, I submit, when involved changes in standing orders were being considered, particularly with regard to supply, it was decided that the house should consider those changes by way of a report and discuss the recommendations in a general way before making a further reference to the committee with regard to a complex picture. But here we have a simple question-whether these recommendations should be adopted, or whether the terms of the standing order should be amended by the house itself in the course of debate. This subject is not one so complex that an approach by way of returning a report is desirable. I mention this, not to claim that the proceedings on my motion would necessarily be more efficient. Rather, I am only claiming that the proceedings on my motion would permit a debate at least equal in efficiency to the proceedings on a motion to concur. If this is a valid claim, then I submit that both May and Beauchesne show I have a right to make my motion.
Hon. members will readily understand what the consequences of any interpretation of the rule against unwarranted anticipation other than the one given by Beauchesne and May must be. If merely by introducing a public bill, or by inscribing a notice of motion under that heading in Votes and Proceedings and then relying on speculation that the bill or motion would be proceeded with inside a reasonable time, a member could block government bills or motions dealing with the same subject, it could be made impossible for parliamentary government to continue. On every issue in every session a government
Debating Time Allotment could be rendered impotent by the exaggerated interpretation of the rule against anticipation now favoured by the hon. member for Peace River.
Perhaps I might deal with one of the arguments raised by the hon. member last week, namely that by proceeding on my motion the opportunity to discuss the report would be lost. I should like to bring to the attention of the house the decision of Mr. Speaker on February 24, 1936 to be found in volume 74 of Canadian Commons Journals at page 68 wherein the Speaker of the day, ruling in favour of a motion put forward by the government, made it perfectly clear that the motion which was being supplanted could be discussed when the matter in question was under consideration.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Therefore, if I have taken some time to present what I believe is the rule on anticipation, it is because a decision in this instance favourable to the views put forward by the hon. member could not help but be damaging to parliamentary government, and I think would push us toward a congressional system.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) seems to get some satisfaction out of the fact that I would like to see the motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) dropped. May I say that that is a correct statement, and that I should like to see the motion of the President of the Privy Council dropped as well.
Lest there be any doubt about this, let me make it perfectly clear that we on this side of the house are completely opposed to the provisions of rule 75c. We are opposed to it in substance, and we are opposed to any moves that might facilitate getting that rule through the house.
The President of the Privy Council has sought to argue that the rule on anticipation can be brought into play against a second motion only when debate on one motion has actually been commenced. I submit that the authorities are not as clear on that point as the President of the Privy Council would have us believe. For example, if one looks at the wording of citation 131 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, he finds these words:
In determining whether a discussion is out of order on the ground of anticipation, regard shall be had by Mr. Speaker to the probability of the matter anticipated being brought before the House within a reasonable time.
July 2. 1969

Debating Time Allotment
There is nothing in that sentence which says that the matter being anticipated has to be one already under discussion. In fact, the next sentence reads:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion of a matter standing on the Paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session.
The words in that sentence that I would underline are "a matter standing on the order paper". There is no question but that the motion in the name of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, which he placed there in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, is standing on the order paper. Therefore, in our view the motion now proposed by the President of the Privy Council is one that would anticipate a matter that is standing on the order paper, and I suggest this is a case in which the rule on anticipation should be applied.
However, Mr. Speaker, in case the arguments of the President of the Privy Council on this point carry more weight than I think they should, may I go a step further and deal with the situation that could develop in a day or so, whenever we get to this matter. Is it not a fact, even if the arguments of the President of the Privy Council are correct, that once one of these debates is started, then the other cannot be commenced? Therefore, the decision that will be made by Your Honour, or by whoever does make it, as to which of these debates is first called will be a decision in favour of the rules of the house being amended, on the one hand by debating the report of the committee, or on the other hand by means of a motion blatantly brought in by the government itself.
If this situation seems to put Your Honour in a difficult spot, then I recognize that. But it seems to me that the President of the Privy Council has, in effect, already put you in that spot in quite an unfair way. He has argued that what Your Honour has to look at is the efficiency or effectiveness of the operation of either motion. He has quoted those words from various authorities and has argued that his motion is at least as effective as the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in bringing this matter to a head. Therefore, in effect he is asking you to decide on the merits of these two motions, on which is the more effective and better motion.
I submit that Your Honour should not be put in this position. Your Honour is not concerned with substance and should not have to 
decide which is the better of two motions. But I do argue that Your Honour does have the right and responsibility to protect the rights of the house, and in particular to protect the rights of the private members of this house.
What is involved in this issue is a very simple question: Are we going to approach the amending of the rules of parliament on the basis of a report brought in by a committee of all parties, even though that report is of the kind that we have already described, or are the rules of parliament going to be amended on the basis of a government notice of motion brought in by the government house leader on behalf of the Prime Minister and the cabinet? In that situation, if the issue is as simple as I have tried to state it, if it is between parliament and the government on the matter of the rules of parliament, I submit Your Honour should rule in favour of parliament, not in favour of the government.
Another argument that was advanced by the President of the Privy Council was what I noted as his impotence argument. He suggested that, if the ruling for which we are asking were made, the result would be to hamstring parliament from here on and turn it into a congressional system or something or other. I am not going to deal at length with that argument, but I would point out both to Your Honour and to the President of the Privy Council that the rules are quite clear: A private member's public bill, under the rule on anticipation, cannot anticipate or block a government measure.
As a matter of fact, there is a pretty good precedent on this score. A few years ago I had a private member's public bill before the house having to do with an aspect of the labour code. The Conservative government of that day brought in a bill touching on the same matter, and as soon as this proposal was brought in the debate on my private member's public bill had to stop. So there is no basis at all for the argument that a ruling such as we are calling for would make parliament impotent in the future and would create a situation in which private members could block the operation of parliament as the government wants it operated. I submit that this was a case of much ado about nothing, if I may indulge slightly in the kind of references which have been made up to this point.
Let me move on the another point. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has already indicated that the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council
July 2, 1969	COMMONS
calls for the adoption of rules 75a, 75b and 75c in almost exactly the same form as the rules spelled out in the committee's report but for the two minor changes that have already been noted. In other words, it is quite clear that what the government has sought to do is to amend the committee's report without going through the process of having that report referred back to the standing committee.
I submit that that is clearly a case of the government's seeking to do indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. Such a devious course is not open to the ordinary members of this house and I do not think it should be open to the government. As I said a moment ago, when Your Honour is called upon to decide, on matters of procedure and rules, between the government and parliament, there is no question which side you should come down on: You should come down on the side of parliament.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
Another point I want to make, which you might say is more a matter of privilege than a matter of order but which I think comes into the picture, is this: What is happening here is that the government is upstaging the committee. The President of the Privy Council seems to get a certain amount of satisfaction out of the fact that I take no responsibility for the report of the committee because I voted against it, as did all the members of the opposition, and then I come along and want the debate in the house to take place on the committee's report rather than on a motion made by the President of the Privy Council.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that even though I may attempt to defeat the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), I have a right, in a parliament which is putting all the emphasis that this parliament is on the work of the committees, to insist that a committee should not be upstaged by a government that wants to take things in its own hands and run parliament the way it wants to without regard for the wishes of parliament as a whole. Even though I may be opposed to the motion of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and even though I may do everything I can to try to have it defeated, I still think I have the right as a member of parliament and as a member of that committee to ask that that be the vehicle by which this matter is brought before this House of Commons.
May I say if Your Honour finds this an extremely difficult decision to make and, as the President of the Privy Council suggested,
Debating Time Allotment if Your Honour feels that you are getting into an area of substance rather than into the area of rules, I hope Your Honour will be very clear on the point that this matter cannot be debated under both motions. If Your Honour allows one, Your Honour certainly will not be able to allow the other. Therefore the issue becomes a very simple one, and Your Honour's ruling is crucial to this problem. Are we going to debate the changing of the rules of parliament on the basis of a study by an all-party committee, or are we going to debate the changing of the rules of parliament on the basis of a blatant government motion that has no regard for the tradition that the rules of this House of Commons belong not to the government, but to parliament as a whole? That is the issue, clear and simple.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to get into an argument of anticipation or to review the arguments advanced by my colleagues on this side of the house. I simply want to draw to Your Honour's attention that the essence of the difficulty today in the government's position is that it is confusing the nature of the motion put on the order paper by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair).
That motion was to adopt a report by a committee of the house which was directed by the house to sit and to consider the matter referred to it. It is not merely a motion standing in the name of the hon. member in his own capacity: It is a direction from this house. I will reiterate the argument put forward by hon. members on this side, that the rules belong to this house. Frankly, I can only say that the government's motion as it now stands is in contempt of the house. The direction was by this house to bring in a report regarding the rules. This is what the committee did. I will not go into the specifics of that, nor the question that it was adopted on a majority view, or anything of that nature.
The committee reported back to the house as it was obligated to do. The government says: We will set that aside; we couldn't care less what the house is directing; the house is going to do what we say. Therefore in line with that kind of reasoning it is open to the government to take any committee report and, because it does not like it, introduce a motion so that such committee report shall stand bypassed, and then decide in what way it should be handled. Under the rules, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to proceed.
July 2, 1969

Debating Time Allotment
This house directed the committee to bring in a report. The house must consider the committee report and not the government motion. I say further, with all due respect, that the Chair was elected to protect the rights of the house, and not just by flat of the government to accommodate its desires. Under those circumstances I say to Your Honour with the greatest respect that the privileges and rights of this house must be protected. This includes all hon. members of the house and not merely the government which seeks either to direct the debate in the house or to act in a particular way.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, in considering this point of order, I ask Your Honour to consider that you are being asked to consider a very fundamental question, not just a procedural one. The reason it is fundamental is the fact the government has come in right over top of the committee which the house appointed, that committee which the house requested to report, which did report and is now being overruled by action of the government. Therefore it is a fundamental question on procedure whether the house is seized of its own business or whether the government has superiority or priority over the house itself. It is a very serious fundamental question that must be determined at this point.
The remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), as I heard them, added up to this: Why proceed on the basis of a committee report when the government is so much more effective? What the minister is saying, Mr. Speaker, is that the government with its majority can crush the opposition faster in the house than it can in the committee, so why go through this long roundabout way of crushing the opposition through committee reports? Why not bring it into the house where the government has a majority, and where they can crush the resistance effectively once and for all? Those are the questions being raised.
This is one of the most serious constitutional and parliamentary questions that has ever been raised. I think the government has engaged in an outrageous abuse of the powers which by custom and tradition have been given to government to direct the business of the house. These powers are not being used in a proper manner, but in an improper, immoral and illegal manner to thwart the ordinary business of the house. This is an inadequate way to consider a committee report. I was also opposed to the committee report and I

would be very strongly voting against it. Nevertheless it is a priority item, ahead of the one the government has brought forward. It must be considered in that manner.
One final point, Mr. Speaker. This is not the case of the government's overruling a committee report it did not like. That would be bad enough. This is even more outrageous, in that the government is trying to overrule a committee report which only their own members supported,, and which came in as a majority report. In other words, not only are they reversing the whole membership of the house represented on that committee, but they are reversing their own members on the committee by suggesting in this manner that the committee did not make a proper report. They are reversing their own decision in the committee.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: During the last 45 minutes or so hon. members on both sides of the house have cited numerous rules, authors and precedents which would have to be considered very seriously by the Chair. If hon. members will allow me to do so, within the next few hours I will have an opportunity to study the presentations made in the chamber by hon. members who have taken part in this procedural debate, and without delay give a decision, which I am sure will not please everyone. The motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council will stand for the time being.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Lewis: 1.	Is it the policy of the Department of Manpower and Immigration to refuse Certificates of Identification to Americans who come to Canada and voluntarily give up their United States citizenship?
2.	Is it possible for such individuals to travel outside of Canada without a Certificate of Identification?
3.	What is the basis for this treatment of such American immigrants?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: 1. In the absence of special compassionate reasons, it is not the policy
July 2, 1969

of the government to issue certificates of identity to former citizens of a friendly country, such as the United States, who have voluntarily become stateless by renouncing their citizenship after arrival in Canada, unless they have done so with the intention of becoming Canadian citizens, or because they are conscientious objectors.
2.	Whether the individual is able to travel outside Canada without a certificate of identity depends on the entry requirements of the country he intends to visit.
3.	With the two exceptions stated above, Canadian certificates of identity are normally only issued to persons who have entered Canada as refugees or stateless persons and have not been in Canada long enough to acquire Canadian citizenship.


ESTABLISHMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCE POLICY COUNCIL
Mr. Sallsman: Does the government have any plans to implement the proposal made by Dr. Solandt that a Social Science Policy Council be established to parallel the Science Council of Canada?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: No. The government does not have any plans to establish a Social Science Policy Council.


TREASURY BOARD DIRECTIONS UNDER ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has Treasury Board issued directions under section 85 of the Financial Administration Act and, if so, what are they?
2.	Has Treasury Board issued orders under section 84 of the Financial Administration Act and, if so, what are they?
3.	Has Treasury Board established regulations under section 80(3) of the Financial Administration Act and, if so, what are they?
4.	During the last two years, did the Auditor General indicate in his reports that funds had been withheld, pursuant to section 73 of the Financial Administration Act and, if so, what are the facts regarding each of these cases?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. No; arrangements on this subject have been made informally.
2.	No; arrangements on this subject have been made informally.
3.	No; arrangements on this subject have been made informally.
4.	No.
Questions


VANCOUVER AIRPORT HIGHWAY
Mr. Godin: 1.	Has the Canadian Government contributed financially to the recent construction of a highway between the City of Vancouver and Vancouver Airport?
2.	If so, how many miles have been constructed?
3.	Is it a four-lane highway?
4.	What amount was set aside for this project?
5.	Has the Province of Ontario approached the federal government for the improvement of the highway connecting the centre of the Capital with the Ottawa Airport?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Transport and the National Capital Commission as follows:
1.	No. However, the federal government has undertaken to construct a bridge between the airport and the city mainland which is to be paid for by tolls.
2.	The length of the river crossing will be approximately 650 ft.
3.	The bridge will carry four lanes of traffic.
4.	An amount of $18 million wat set aside for the bridge and associated highway improvements on the airport.
5.	Prior to the completion of the Ottawa/ Hull Area Transportation Study of 1965, the Province of Ontario expressed some interest in the construction of a high standard road connecting the centre of Ottawa to the Ottawa Airport.


ACREAGE REDUCTION PAYMENT
Mr. Soufham: In light of the apparent oversupply of red hard wheat in the world today, is the government giving consideration to an acreage reduction payment to Western farmers as an emergency measure to overcome the overproduction and short cash situation?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: The government has introduced a number of measures to assist western farmers and is giving consideration to longer term solutions to these problems.


SECRETARY OF STATE PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of the Secretary of State have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2.	What was the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?

July 2, 1969
Questions


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1.	At the present time the Department of the Secretary of State has a public relations staff of four information officers.
2.	Prior to 1965, there was no one employed in the public relations field within the Department of the Secretary of State. The total cost for the years 1965-1968 inclusive is as follows: 1965, $3,971; 1966, $26,787; 1967, $47,784; 1968, $34,690.


CONTEMPLATED ABOLITION OF INDIAN ACT
Mr. Yewchuk: Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development contemplating the abolition of the Indian Act and, if so, has he reached any decision regarding the fate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: A statement and the policy was tabled in the House of Commons on Wednesday, June 25, 1969.


BOIS-FRANCS, QUE., POST OFFICE MAINTENANCE
Mr. Rondeau: 1.	Who provides the cleaning and maintenance products for the post offices of the Bois-Francs area in the Eastern Townships and in Montreal?
2.	Who purchases these products for the Post Office Department?
3.	Are purchases made for a whole area or for each post office separately?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The Department of Public Works.
2.	The Department of Supply and Services.
3.	Purchases are made in bulk for the whole area and charged to the individual post office when issued.
\ English]


PLANS FOR STORED WHEAT SALES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	Has the government any announcement to make regarding how it plans to market the 800,000,000 bushels of wheat which it is estimated will be lying unsold in the granary across the country by July 31, the end of the present crop year?
2.	Has the government considered any form of aid to these farmers, many of whom are finding it difficult to finance this year's crop?


Yves Forest: I am informed by the Departments of Industry,

Trade and Commerce and Agriculture as follows: 1. There are very large stocks of wheat in the world and trade has declined. Many countries are experiencing difficulties in exporting wheat and there can be no definitive announcement at this time concerning the marketing of the existing stocks of Canadian wheat. The government, the Canadian Wheat Board and the private grain trade continue to make every effort to market Canadian wheat.
2.	The government has introduced a number of measures to assist western farmers and is giving consideration to longer term solutions to these problems.


INVESTMENT OF INDIAN BAND FUNDS
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	In what manner are Indian Band Funds invested or otherwise dealt with?
2.	What interest rate is paid on such funds?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Indian Band Funds are not invested but are held in Consolidated Revenue. These funds may be used for the benefit of the band in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Act and with the consent of the Band Council concerned.
2.	The rate of interest paid on approximately $31 million is 5 per cent. The rate of interest on the balance, about $1 million, is 6 per cent.


COST SHARING PROJECTS FOR INDIANS
Mr. Brewin: 1.	Has the federal government refused to proceed with several cost-sharing projects for the benefit of Indians in Ontario despite an agreement to do so in 1966 and, if not, has the attention of the government been drawn to the statement to that effect made by the Prime Minister of Ontario in the Legislature?
2.	When did the Federal-Provincial Committee on Indian Affairs last meet (a) who is responsible for calling such meetings (b) if the meetings have not been called for a year, what is the reason?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Under the terms of the Community Development Agreement, signed in 1966, Canada agreed to share in the cost of projects for Indians approved by the Federal-Provincial Coordinating Committee composed of officials of both the Ontario and federal governments. The federal government has not refused to proceed with any projects approved by this
July 2, 1969

committee. Yes, the statement has been drawn to the attention of the government.
2.	The Federal-Provincial Committee on Indian Affairs last met on September 4, 1968.
(a)	Chairman of the Committee, a nominee of the province; (b) Not applicable.


RELEASE OF INFORMATION ON COMBINES INVESTIGATIONS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	What is the reason that no information is released about investigations being undertaken by the Director of Combines Investigation?
2.	What is the amount spent on investigation in each of the last ten cases referred to the Director?
3.	How many witnesses other than employees or officers of the company under investigation were called or interviewed in each case?
Questions


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The reasons, as explained in detail by the then Minister of Justice, will be found in Unrevised Hansard for November 23, 1964, at pages 10377-78.
2	and 3. Investigations are instituted by the Director of Investigation and Research whenever he has reason to believe there has been a violation of the Combines Investigation Act. The Director's reason to believe may result from information or complaints brought to his attention in a variety of ways. Statistics are not kept in a manner which permits a clear identification of "the last ten cases referred to the Director". Assuming this to mean the last ten instances in which formal inquiries have been instituted, the information is as follows:
Case No.
2
4
6
8
10
The foregoing inquiries have not been completed. Records are not kept of the time spent by the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research in formal inquiries, so that amounts set out above are exclusive of salaries.


TORONTO METROPOLITAN ZONE BOOK
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many copies of the publications Toronto Zone Book and Toronto Metropolitan Zone Book were printed?
2.	What was the cost of such printing?
3.	How many of each version were distributed?
4.	What was the date of such distribution?
5.	Who comprised the group which prepared the Zone Books and the zoning system for Toronto?
6.	When did the group begin its work?
7.	When was the work completed?
8.	What was the total cost involved in the establishment of postal zones for the Toronto area?
No. of Witnesses 1 3
20
26
4 2 8
9.	Did the Zone Books indicate that the zone numbers had been set up in such a way as to eliminate the necessity of any changes over the next thirty years?
10.	Is it intended to retain the zone numbers as set out in the publications referred to in part 1?
11.	Has a task force been appointed to study a zoning system for other Canadian cities?
12.	Who are the members of the task force?
13.	When is it expected that their report will be completed?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	Originally: 75,000 of Toronto, 75,000 of Metro Toronto (Perimeter Post Offices); Reprint: 200,000 of each.
2.	$50,000.
3.	75,000.
4.	April 17, 1969.
Amount Spent to May 27, 1969
Not yet available $376.04 293.31
Not yet available
161.85 531.47 526.99
219.86 2.50
151.65


VANCOUVER POSTAL ZONE SYSTEM
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Is the postal zone system which was in force in Vancouver on January 1, 1969 now in force?
2.	Is the 3 digit postal zone system which was to go into use in Vancouver on June 15 now also in effect?
3.	How many postal zone books outlining the new 3 digit postal zone numbers for Vancouver were distributed?
4.	When were these books first given out and when did the Post Office Department stop distributing them?
5.	How much did these books cost the Post Office Department?
6.	Did the Post Office Department renumber the postal zones of addresses on mailing lists for Vancouver destinations and at what cost to the Post Office Department?
7.	When was the campaign advertizing the new 3 digit postal zones in Vancouver first put into effect and when was this advertizing discontinued?
8.	How much did this advertizing campaign cost?
9.	For how long is it estimated that Vancouver will continue to have two overlapping postal zone systems?
10.	Is the Post Office Department suggesting that clients now using the 3 digit postal zone system might revert to the system formerly in use?
[Mr. KieransJ


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	900 advance copies in the form of printed sheets.
4.	Begun 26 February 1969, ended 23 May 1969.
5.	$250.
6.	Yes; $644.
7.	No direct advertising campaign was conducted. The Vancouver Post Office requested local mailers to have their mailing lists rezoned.
8.	No direct cost.
9.	Until the study of the possible use of a postal code in Canada, now being organized, is completed and its results and recommendations are evaluated.
10.	No. Customers are told they may use either zoning system.


THREE DIGIT ZONING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Which cities are zoned by a 3 digit zone system?
2.	Is it possible that the 3 digit zone system now in force in these cities will be dropped as a result of the review of zoning systems suggested by the Minister of Communications on May 29?
3.	For which 3 cities were changes in postal zones planned at the time of the Minister's suggestion of May 29 and what was the planned date of implementation in each case?
4.	In which cities have advertising campaigns been undertaken to advise users of postal services of impending changes to a different postal zone system and at what cost in each city?
5.	In which of these cities were clients of the Post Office advised to change letterheads and stationery to comply with the projected zones?
6.	What was the response to these Post Office Department suggestions?
7.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to determine which clients of the Post Office paid to have stationery printed to include changed postal zone numbers only to find that plans for implementation of the changed postal zone programmes cancelled or postponed?
8.	Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to reimburse these clients of the Post Office for these expenditures?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as
the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver.
2.	Yes, but not probable. It is expected that, if a national postal code is adopted in
July 2, 1969

Canada, existing 3 digit zone designations will be integrated into it.
3.	Quebec, October 1, 1969; Vancouver, June 1, 1969; Ottawa, August 1, 1969.
4.	Toronto, $72,785; London, $8,402.
5.	Toronto, Vancouver and London.
6.	The response was generally favourable.
7.	No.
8.	No. Use of either old or new zone numbers will be quite compatible with the Post Office mail processing procedures. There is no need for anyone to change a zone address designation on his stationery at this time.


TORONTO-CONTRACTS PRECEDING THREE DIGIT ZONING
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Which companies were awarded contracts for advertizing campaigns preceding the scheduled introduction of the 3 digit zone programme for Metropolitan Toronto?
2.	According to the contracts, how much was to be paid to the companies which were awarded contracts?
3.	What were the terms of the contracts?
4.	When was each of these contracts signed?
5.	How much was actually paid to the companies awarded these contracts?
6 Who was responsible for the publication of the Toronto Zone Book and for the Toronto Metropolitan Zone Book?
7.	Did any companies prematurely terminate advertizing the introduction of the 3 digit zone system on the grounds that a sufficient number of zone books were not available to the public in Metro Toronto?
8.	Has the Post Office Department suspended or cancelled implementation of the rezoning programme and, if so, for how long?
9.	What was the cost to the Post Office Department of planning the proposed 3 digit zone system for Toronto and (a) what was the cost of advertizing this proposed system (b) what was the cost of publishing the Toronto and Metropolitan
Fiscal Year 1967/68
Basic Training for Skill Development Heavy Equipment Operator
Fiscal Year 1968/69 Construction Labourer Heavy Equipment Operator Hotel and Hospital Services 29180-679J
Questions
Toronto zone books (c) what was the total cost to the Post Office of the proposed 3 digit zone programme for Toronto?


Eric William Kierans: In so far
as the Post Office Department is concerned:
1.	Foster Advertising Agency of Montreal which conducts the complete Post Office advertising program.
2.	See answer to Item 5.
3.	See answer to Item 5.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	No separate contract was entered into for zoning advertising which was included in the general advertising program. Payments were: Advertising, $60,785 (including 15 per cent commission to the agency); Production, approximately $12,000.
6.	The Director of Information and Public Relations of the Post Office Department.
7.	No.
8.	Implementation of the zoning system has been temporarily suspended pending the completion of a study of the possible use of a national postal code in Canada.
9.	Planning, $7,896; Advertising, $72,785; Publishing, $50,000; Total $130,681.


MOOSONEE EDUCATION CENTRE
Mr. Roy (Timmins): 1.	What were the last actual costs paid to the Province of Ontario on the basis of expenditures incurred for the following courses given at the Moosonee Education Centre: construction labourer, heavy equipment operator, hotel and hospital services?
2.	Were the initial invoices submitted by the Province for these courses, identical to the actual costs paid or were they adjusted before payment?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Payments:
Interim	Settlement	Total

6,480	5,395	11,874.7718,560	76,260	94,820.2925,040	81,655	106,695
15,360
28,800
11,520
55,680

July 2, 1969
Questions
Contracts for the payment to a province of costs incurred for supplying courses under the Adult Occupational Training Act provide for: (a) interim payments each month based on the number of training places occupied in the previous month, and a per-student cost specified in a schedule to the contract, and (b) a final settlement which is determined by subtracting interim payments from total costs.
The province is required, within one year following the close of the fiscal year in which the costs were incurred, to submit a claim for the total costs of providing training. Provinces customarily submit such claims late in the ensuing fiscal year, covering all training supplied during the previous fiscal year. Because of this arrangement, total cost data are currently available only in respect of training conducted in the fiscal year 1967/68. In that year only two courses, Basic Training for Skill Development (16 students) and Heavy Equipment Operator (15 students) were provided at Moosonee.
2. For the fiscal year 1967/68 the province submitted its total cost claim, dated April 9, 1969, amounting to $106,695, and indicating a balance due from the federal government of $81,655. This amount was paid on 14 May, 1969. As previously agreed between the federal and provincial governments, payments are in all cases subject to any adjustment which may be required by subsequent federal audit.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC RELATIONS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Post Office Department have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
, 2. What was the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Eric William Kierans: In so far as
the Post Office Department: 1. (a) Yes, carrying out a combined information and public relations program; (b) Headquarters, 27; Field, 28 (plus support staff shared with other functions).
2.	*1960-61, $262,258; *1961-62, $312,738; *1962-63, $300,623; *1963-64, $270,943; 196465, $377,416; 1965-66, $416,060; 1966-67, $515,387; 1967-68, $583,585; 1968-69, $764,594.
Note: Salary costs for field personnel not included as the information cannot be extracted from expenditure records without substantial delay and excessive cost.
[Mr. MacEachen.l
* Salaries and travel costs for Headquarters personnel not included. These were not segregated in a separate allotment prior to 1964-65.


FEDERAL PARKS IN QUEBEC
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the government intend to establish other federal parks in the Province of Quebec (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, where?
2.	Since the adoption of the Act respecting federal parks, how much money has been spent on federal parks and of that amount, how much has gone to the Province of Quebec?
3 Is the government negotiating with the Government of the Province of Quebec with a view to establishing other federal parks in that Province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. (a)
The federal government would welcome any request from the province of Quebec for the establishment of other National Parks in that province; (b) Any area in the province considered of national significance and worthy of preservation for future generations.
2.	Since the establishment of the first National Park (Banff) in 1885, $355,289,424 was spent on National Parks in Canada. (This comprises Operation and Maintenance Capital investments and money spent on trunk highways.) Since there were no National Parks in Quebec, no money was spent in that province for National Parks.
3.	No.


CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATION EXPROPRIATIONS
Mr. Forfin: 1.	Did the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation expropriate assets of Canadian Marconi Ltd. and of Cable and Wireless Ltd. and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was compensation made and on what date?
3.	What compensation in the case of each company was made, on what basis was it set, and was reference made to the Exchequer Court in that connection?


Eric William Kierans: The Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation reports as follows: 1. The Corporation expropriated all the assets of Canadian Marconi Company Ltd. and Cable and Wireless Ltd. in Canada which had been operated for overseas telecommunications services. Notices of expropriation with respect to Canadian Marconi
July 2, 1969

Company were published in the Canada Gazette on June 7, 1950 and March 15, 1952 and a notice with respect to expropriation of the assets of Cable and Wireless Ltd. appeared in the Canada Gazette on June 7, 1950. Expropriation took effect on those dates.
2.	Compensation was made to Canadian Marconi Company Ltd. on the following dates: September 27, 1950, May 4, 1951 and May 1, 1952, and to Cable and Wireless Ltd. on August 28, 1951.
3.	Canadian Marconi Company was paid a total of $2,776,761 and Cable and Wireless Ltd. $550,000. Expert evaluations of all properties and equipments were made for the Corporation and these formed the basis of negotiations with the two Companies. Canadian Marconi Company Ltd. filed a claim with the Exchequer Court but subsequently withdrew it when negotiations indicated that a mutually satisfactory settlement could be concluded.


SALE TO JAPAN OF IRON ORE CONCENTRATES
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1969, did Iron Ore Company of Canada Ltd. make any arrangement to deliver or sell iron ore concentrates to Japan and, if so, what amounts of such ore, over what periods of time and at what price?
2.	Does the government have any assessment of the number of man-days of employment that would accrue to Canadian workers if this amount of iron ore were processed in Canada into (a) pig iron, and (b) tubular steel?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes. As publicly announced by the company, an arrangement has been made whereby the Iron Ore Company of Canada Ltd. will supply Japan with approximately 800,000 tons of iron ore concentrates. Shipments will commence during 1970 and will be half-completed by the end of 1971. Information with respect to the completion and the price of this supply arrangement is not available.
2. (a) Not available; (b) Based on available statistics, our assessment is that 800,000 tons of iron ore concentrates processed and manufactured into some 315,000 tons of tubular steel products could represent approximately 800,000 man-days.


LONG HARBOUR, NFLD.-POLLUTION BY ELECTRIC REDUCTION PLANT
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Had the Department of Fisheries and Forestry facilities to anticipate the damage done by the
Questions
amounts of toxic waste dumped into Long Harbour, Newfoundland, by Electric Reduction Company of Canada?
2.	Did the Fisheries' biologists advise action after dead fish were found in December and poisoned herring appeared in February?
3.	Why was action not taken to close the plant and stop the fishing before the month of May?
4 Can Long Harbour be reclaimed for fishing?
5.	When, and at what estimated cost?
6.	Who will pay the bill?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: 1. No.
2.	No.
3.	Because the Department did not have evidence that the plant was at fault prior to that time.
4.	Yes.
5.	Later this year and at no cost to the Canadian government.
6.	The Electric Reduction Company of Canada.


ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES PUBLIC RELATIONS PERSONNEL
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?
2 What was the total cost of the public relations for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?


Hon. Otio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Yes, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources does have a public relations staff. The Public Relations and Information Services Branch services the Department in this capacity. This branch has a total staff of 42, of which 15 work at public information full time. The remaining staff is concerned exclusively with the editing and production of scores of scientific and semi-technical reports, edited for scientific and specialized audiences.
2. Prior to the year 1967 the budget for salaries and other expenditures were part of the departmental administration vote and were not recorded separately. The total cost of operating this branch for the fiscal years 1967-68 and 1968-69 was as follows:
Expenditure
Fiscal Year	$
1967-	68	432,000	!.1968-	69	585,000
July 2, 1969
Questions
FABRIC FLAMMABILITY STANDARDS	2. What was the total cost of public relations
for the Department for each of the years 1960-68 
Question No. 2,491-Mr. Robinson:	inclusive?
Is it the intention of the federal government to develop Canadian standards on fabric flammability and flammability ratings leading to a possible labelling system?


Hon.   Ron. Basford@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Yes.


INCREASE IN PASSPORT OFFICE PERSONNEL
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	By how much has the staff of the Passport Office been increased in the past two months?
2.	How many people are now involved in the processing of passport applications and, how many for the corresponding period in 1968?
3.	How many passport applications have been processed to date this year and, how many for the corresponding period of 1968?
4.	Does the government anticipate further hiring of personnel to increase the staff of the Passport Office in order that a greater degree of efficiency in that Office be attained?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. On April 16, 1969, this office employed 289 employees. As of June 16, 1969, the office has 404 persons on staff or an increase of approximately 40 per cent, but had been reduced to 363 by Friday evening, June 20 to reflect the fall in workload.
2.	At the present time there are 363 employees involved in the processing of passport applications. This figure included a second and third shift of passport writers and other employees in the production line. Last year during the same period the Passport Office had a staff of 213 employees.
3.	Up to Friday, June 20, 1969, the Passport Office has issued 235,420 passports whereas during the same period in 1968, 203,665 passports were issued and renewed. It should be mentioned however, that during the last seven weeks or since May 1, 105,558 passports were processed or an increase in production of 45 per cent over the same period in 1968.
4.	No, the Passport Office does not anticipate hiring additional personnel at present because, following its normal seasonal pattern, the volume of passport applications has dropped.


INDIAN AFFAIRS PUBLIC RELATIONS STAFF
Mr. Robinson: 1. Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a public relations staff and, if so, how many?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. 22.
2. 1960-66: Prior to April 1, 1966, the Department did not have a Public Relations Staff as a separate entity. The funds were at that time included in the budgets of various branches and it is not possible to segregate the number of staff and expenditures from 1960 to 1966; 1968-67: $204,063. 1967-68: $221,081. 1968-69: $406,965.


CAUSE AND CURE OF HEMOPHILIA
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg: North Centre):
1.	Has the government made funds available for research into the cause and cure of hemophilia?
2.	If so, how much has been made available?
3.	If not, is serious consideration being given to making provision for such research, and when will a decision be taken?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes. The Medical Research Council is prepared to grant funds for research into the cause and cure of hemophilia.
2.	In response to applications in 1968-69, the Medical Research Council made grants totalling $59,700 in relation to research into the cause and cure of hemophilia.
3.	See answer in Part 2.


SASKATOON, SASK.-FUNDS FOR PUBLIC HOUSING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by the following toward the 60 public housing units presently being constructed in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the City of Saskatoon?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?
3.	What recreational facilities will these projects include (a) inside (b) outside?
4.	On what basis will the tenants be selected?
5.	On what basis will the rents be set?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. (a) The federal government's contribution is estimated at $835,327.50; (b,, The provincial government's contribution it estimated at $222,754; (c) The city of Saskatoon's contribution is estimated at $55,688.50.
2. The cost of the land was $123,922.
July 2, 1969

3.	(a) As these units will be semi-detached houses located on scattered sites in N.H.A. approved subdivisions throughout the city, there will be no special inside recreational facilities included; (b) Outside recreational facilities will be those normally provided by the municipality in the various subdivisions and localities in which the houses are located.
4.	The tenants will be selected by the local Housing Authority on a point rating system which takes into consideration present accommodation, present rent, number of dependents, eviction notices issued, overcrowding and income.
5.	Rental rates will be in accordance with the rent-to-income scale.


COST OF REFORESTATION PROGRAM
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the federal government have a plan of reforestation in areas ravaged by forest fires and, if so, what is the yearly cost for this program?
2.	In what areas of Canada is the reforestation plan implemented?
3.	How many trees are planted yearly in the reforestation program?
4.	Does the federal government have a Joint program of reforestation with any provinces and, if so, to what extent and where is the program carried out?


Eugene Whelan: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: 1.	How many copies of the publication "Foreign Trade" were printed each month for the past year
(a)	in English (b) in French?
2.	What was the total cost of printing and of circulating (a) the English edition (b) the French edition of "Foreign Trade" each month for the past year?
3.	How many copies were distributed free of charge and how many copies were sold each month for the past year of (a) the English edition (b) the French edition?
4.	To what group of readers is "Foreign Trade" chiefly directed?
5.	What was the cost each month for the past year of translation in connection with the French edition?
Return tabled.
Questions


NUMBER OF ASSISTANTS TO CABINET MINISTERS
Mr. Coates: 1 How many Executive Assistants, Special Assistants and Ministerial Aides were on the staff of each member of the Cabinet on March 30, 1968?
2.	What were their names, their duties and what salary did each receive at that time?
3.	How many Executive Assistants, Special Assistants and Ministerial Aides are on the staff of each member of Cabinet today, and what are the names of these individuals, what are their duties, and what is the salary paid to each?
Return tabled.


DEPARTMENTAL INFORMATION SERVICES- NUMBER OF VACANCIES IN EACH DEPARTMENT
Mr. Coates: How many vacancies exist on the information and public relations staffs of each department today, will these vacancies be filled and, if so, in what manner?
Return tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS INFORMATION SERVICE-COST AND NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS, 1960-68
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Does the Department of External Affairs provide an information service and, if so, what is the cost for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
2.	How many publications and/or periodicals and/or information sheets and/or public releases were provided by the Department for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive, and what was the cost of each publication for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many copies of each publication are provided and to whom are they distributed and how is the distribution effected?
Return tabled.


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many applications for scholarships at the secondary, university and postgraduate levels were made to the federal government by students from (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?
2.	How many applications were refused in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?
3.	How many were accepted in (a) Quebec (b) Ontario?
Return tabled.

July 2, 1969
Motions for Papers TECHNICAL EDUCATION-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO QUEBEC

Question No. 2,411-Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse):
1.	Did the federal government contribute to the cost of building composite schools or technical schools in the Province of Quebec from 1960 to 1968 and, if so, at what locations in Quebec were these schools constructed, what was the amount of this contribution, and under what agreement was it made?
2.	Is the federal government considering a financial contribution for the above purposes for the fiscal year 1969-70 and, if so (a) for what projects, at what locations, and what will be the amount of the federal contribution for each project, and
(b)	under what agreement with the Province of Quebec?
Return tabled.


Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Customs Offices are there in Canada and where is each located?
2.	What was the total cost to maintain and staff each Customs Office in Canada for each of the years 1960-68 inclusive?
3.	How many Customs Officers are there in each of the Customs Offices in Canada?
Return tabled.


Mr. Anderson: With reference to the Task Force on Sports and the Task Force on Housing (a) how many persons were employed in the preparation of the reports
(b)	for how long were these persons employed
(c)	what was the cost of each Task Force?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 119, 140, 172, 173, 175, 193, 194, 207 and 224.
i I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


CONSULTANT STUDIES ON SCIENCE POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the five consultant studies referred to by the 
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in their submission to the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, April 30, 1969, Appendix "K", Page 50, of that Department's submission.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, of the five consultant studies referred to in the motion three can be tabled. The two remaining studies have not been completed. One of these is expected to contain industrial proprietary information which could not be made public. The second will be published exclusive of commercial confidential information within one year of the completion of data collection and analysis. It is expected that data collection and analysis will be concluded sometime in 1970. If the hon. member accepts these limitations and withdraws his motion, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is willing to table copies of the three studies.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norlh):: That is acceptable.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and limitations expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 119 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
MOTOR VEHICLES REMISSION ORDER Motion No. 172-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, agreements and arrangements between the Government of Canada and the Canadian automobile manufacturers regarding custom duties related to Order-in-Council headed: Financial Administration Act; Customs Act Motor Vehicles General Remission Order. PC. 1969-172.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, there are no agreements or arrangements relating to this motion. Some correspondence on this subject has been tabled on April 26, 1965, and September 16, 1968. In addition a letter from the government to the Ford Motor Company of Canada, made available recently to the Public Accounts Standing Committee, can be forwarded to the member if he wishes. Other correspondence is confidential and its disclosure is not in the public interest. In view of this situation the minister
July 2, 1969

hopes that the hon. member will withdraw his motion.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whit-by):: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.
MADISON, WISCONSIN, COST-BENEFIT STUDIES Motion No. 173


John Edward Broadbent: That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all papers and studies presented at the North American Conference on Cost-Benefit Analysis, May 14 and 15 at Madison, Wisconsin, sponsored by Canada's Department of Manpower and Immigration and the United States Department of Labour as mentioned in the Department of Manpower and Immigration Press Release of May 6.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) I wish to report that the papers called for in this motion are shortly to be published jointly by Queen's University and the University of Wisconsin. In view of this fact, I wonder if the hon. member would agree to withdraw the notice of motion?


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


ADULT TRAINING PROGRAM STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 175-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study on Canada's Adult Training Program showing a 2.5:1 benefit-cost ratio as mentioned by the Assistant-Deputy Minister of the Department of Manpower and Immigration at the University of Wisconsin Conference on May 14, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) I wish to report that the study referred to does not exist in a convenient physical form and as a result the minister does not see any value in reproducing it for the house. However, he will be pleased to make it available for the hon. member's perusal. In view of this fact, the hon. member might wish to withdraw the notice of motion.
Motions for Papers


David Orlikow: That
is agreeable.


Mr. Speaker:: Withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


TASK FORCE PLAN FOR STUDENT EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 193-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the plan of the Special Task Force to study the question of summer jobs for students as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his Address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) that the documents called for in this motion are internal working papers used by departmental officers and, as such, are traditionally privileged. In view of this fact, I would ask that the hon. member withdraw his notice of motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.


STUDY ON ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 194-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the preliminary study of the Occupational Training for Adults Program showing a 3:1 benefit-cost ratio as stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his address to the Canadian Vocational Association on May 23, 1969.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) reports that the study referred to does not exist in a convenient physical form and as a result the minister does not see any value in reproducing it for the house. However, he will be pleased to make it available for the hon. member's perusal. In view of this fact, the hon. member might wish to withdraw the notice of motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.

July 2, 1969
Motions for Papers


REPORTS PREPARED FOR JUNE BUDGET
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 207-Mr. Salisman:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the studies on the impact of deferred capital allowances, taxes on air fares, speed-ups, in bringing about the final three stages of the Kennedy-Round tariff reductions and any other reports, studies, or reviews etc. prepared for the June Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance.
Mr. H. E. Gray (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, any reports, studies or reviews within the scope of this notice of motion would have been internal working papers prepared only for the information of the minister, and it has been the invariable practice to consider such material as privileged. The government's decisions on these matters and the reasons for them were set forth in the budget brought down by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) on June 3. In view of this fact, it is hoped that the hon. member will agree to withdraw his notice of motion.


Mr. Max Salisman (Waterloo):: Transferred for debate.


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


KAISER JEEP CANADA LTD.-DISCONTINUANCE OF PRODUCTION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 224-Mr. Broadbeni:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and Kaiser Jeep Canada Ltd. regarding the discontinuation of its production activities in Canada.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) wishes to inform the hon. member that correspondence related to this motion is of a proprietary nature and therefore confidential and cannot be tabled. The minister would request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate pursuant to Standing Order 48.
Shall the remaining notices of motion stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct

attention to my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 189, having to do with a copy of the report of a special committee on increasing the pensions of retired public servants. I wonder when I may expect a return to that notice of motion? It has been on the order paper since May 26.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: could not read the lips of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury).



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, now that mass starvation seems to be imminent in Nigeria as well as Biafra as a result of the forced withdrawal of the Red Cross, whether he can say if it is still the position of the Canadian government that all Canadian relief aid should be channelled through the Red Cross.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure, like the Leader of the Opposition, other members of the house and all Canadians, we are deeply distressed by these recent events. From the news available to us, it appears that on both sides political and military considerations are taking precedence over the lives of innocent people. On Friday the Prime Minister sent a message to General Gowon of the F.M.G. in which he reminded the Nigerian head of state of the deep and continuing concern of the Canadian people for the innocent suffering as a result of the conflict.
We are consulting with other interested governments concerning what should be done under these circumstances. We have been in touch already with the Canadian Red Cross and this afternoon I shall be seeing a representative of Canairelief to discuss his views. We are, of course, not yet in a position to formulate our policy for the future because there are some elements of uncertainty which we would like to clarify first.
July 2. 1969	COMMONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his general statement of position.
I should like to ask him what action, if any, the government of Canada proposes to take in addition to these conversations with other countries, which should have been held a long time ago. What proposals is the government of Canada making to other countries with regard to this very depressing situation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, in the conversations that have been going on between the Canadian and Nigerian governments, we have been pressing upon the Nigerian government the importance of doing everything possible to facilitate relief. The house may recall that General Gowon had assured the Prime Minister's representative, who called on him some months ago, that he would authorize daylight flights. No response was received, from Biafra and it now appears that there are objections by both sides to daylight flights, except under very qualified conditions. In respect of what we can and would like to do in the future, the government again is looking at its policy.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer my question. I asked the minister whether the government of Canada is making any proposals in the course of its conversations with other countries to meet the very depressing situation. Is the government of Canada making any proposals and what are those proposals?


Mitchell William Sharp: What we would like, and what I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would like, is to have relief shipments resumed. This is the purpose of all our representations to the Nigerian authorities, to the Red Cross and to the other agencies concerned as well as other governments who share with us the burden of providing relief.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether, in the course of his consultations with other governments, he has discussed action through the United Nations on a humanitarian basis to relieve this horrendous situation or whether he has discussed with the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom as well as other interested governments a united front to protest against the affront to humanity involved in the kicking out of the Red Cross from Nigeria.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government has not as yet settled upon a course of action 29180-6801
Inquiries of the Ministry because, as I said earlier, there are some uncertainties still to be cleared up. It is not clear yet whether the Red Cross will be able to operate.
Until these are cleared up I do not think we can decide exactly what we should do. But so far as the Canadian government is concerned we want to do what the hon. gentleman suggested and what all members of this house and all the people in this country would like to do. We would like to do everything possible to see that innocent lives are not sacrificed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that many Canadians, as the minister says, are terribly interested in this vitally important matter, can he advise what if any channels are now available for aid from Canadians to this strife torn area.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I now understand the situation, at the present time neither the Biafrans nor the Nigerian authorities have been able to agree upon a procedure for sending relief by air. Discussions are still going on with regard to delivery by land and by sea but none of these has as yet resulted in an agreement between the two parties. So at the present time I cannot say whether or not the charity of the Canadian people can be made available to the people, of Biafra. There are facilities available to Nigeria.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government has as yet protested to the Nigerian government about the fact that the Red Cross has been expelled by the Nigerians from relief activities in the area.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I said on Friday the Prime Minister sent a very special message to General Gowon following up previous contacts with that government.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: Mr. Speaker, in the meantime are the bold and brave countries of the world still supplying arms to Nigeria and Biafra while this inhumane tragedy unfolds?


Mitchell William Sharp: As the hon. gentleman knows, Canada is not supplying any arms, has protested publicly against this practice and has urged everyone to stop the supply of arms.
10752	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



STUDY BY INVESTMENT DEALERS OF TAKEOVERS-REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT AND HOUSE COMMITTEE INQUIRY

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. It arises out of the statement he made earlier today in which he said his officials have been in touch with the Investment Dealers Association regarding the studies which that association is initiating. Can the minister give the house any idea how long this study is likely to take and whether or not any action by the government is contingent upon the receipt of the report arising out of this study?


Edgar John Benson: The answer to the second part of the question is, not necessarily. The answer to the first part of the question is that I will consult with the Investment Dealers Association. At the moment, I do not have at my fingertips the length of time they expect to take. I should point out, as I did in my report, that they have indicated they will not, while their study is going on, agree to transactions which would involve further takeovers.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that any subsequent action taken by the government would have to be retroactive, to apply to Merrill, Lynch and Associates, and in view of the fact that some decision would have to be made fairly soon, has the minister set in his own mind some date at which a decision will be reached concerning government policy in respect of the takeover of Canadian financial institutions, and when he will be making that policy known to the house.


Edgar John Benson: I should point out that the constitutional position of the government is that we cannot prevent companies incorporated in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and so on from being taken over by other companies except by some over-all legislation which is not in the process of being prepared at the present time. The action the government could take would be along the line of limiting access to the Bank of Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister when he expects to reach a decision on this matter and
[Mr. Sharp.I
DEBATES	July 2, 1969
whether he will be announcing it to the house.


Edgar John Benson: As soon as possible and yes.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the widespread interest in this question and its importance, would the minister facilitate the establishment of a committee of the house to make a systematic inquiry in the key sectors of the economy which seem to be of vital importance in connection with Canadian control?


Edgar John Benson: There is a committee of the house which I think would be appropriate for this purpose. The workload that committee has ahead of it in the immediate future is I think heavy, but I will certainly give attention to the suggestion.


Gerald William Baldwin: What attention will you give to its report?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has been conferring for the past two months with the Secretary of State for the United States regarding the extradition of Hal Banks. Can he bring the house up to date as to the results achieved by those conversations, up to and including his talk with the secretary of state in Washington last week?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the situation.


George Harris Hees: How long does the Secretary of State believe this delaying action will protect Mr. Banks from the law and the government from the embarrassment of revelations about contributions to the Liberal party, which he will undoutedly make when he comes back to Canada? Is there no answer?


An hon. Member:: There was no question.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I should direct that supplementary question to the Minister of Justice who has a vital interest, Mr. Speaker.
July 2. 1969



LAYING OF CHARGES IN OFFENCES INVOLVING USE OF L.S.D.

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice a question of national importance which affects the youth of our nation, particularly those who have been visiting national parks in Canada. There has been a considerable amount of trafficking in a new chemical which contains l.s.d. and dozens of young people over the holiday were on various "trips", involving lawlessness in Banff and other places in Canada. Can the minister now assure us that the new act is in force, so that this chemical will be covered, enabling the police to lay charges against those traffickers and thereby protect the youth of our nation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are provisions in the amendments to the Narcotics Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act to which royal assent was given last Friday which will provide law enforcement authorities with some effective control over the distribution and use of l.s.d.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask a supplementary question because the information I have is that more than 100 youths were affected in Banff. Will the minister take it upon himself, through his1 department, to carry out an investigation in Banff to make certain that this new chemical which contains large amounts of l.s.d. is covered by the new law in order that the youth will be protected?


John Napier Turner: I am looking to my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare for confirmation of what I have said. The new substance which has been drawn to the attention of the hon. member for Calgary North containing l.s.d. was the cause of some concern both to the Department of National Health and Welfare and to the Department of Justice for some time. It is covered. I would imagine that the administration of justice on a daily basis in these two national parks would now best be left to the Attorney General of Alberta.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When I was replying to the hon. member for Calgary North I may have misled him in my final reference to the provincial attorney-general. The hon. member knows that prosecutions under the Narcotic Control Act and the Food and Drugs Act are undertaken by the federal Attorney-General.
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE



MEDICARE-DISCONTINUANCE OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION IN PROVINCES IMPLEMENTING PLAN

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he can advise the house that a decision was taken and has been implemented by the government to discontinue its employer's contribution to the cost of basic health programs under G.S.M.I.P. in the case of members of the public service of Canada residing in any province which is implementing the federal medicare plan on a compulsory annual fee basis, such as in Alberta?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, that is a quite complicated question and I will take it as notice.



RESEARCH


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the discussions the President of the Treasury Board has had recently with the examiners from O.E.C.D. who pointed out the lack of research and development in Canada and indicated that multi-national control of much of Canadian industry is responsible for it, and in view of the statement made by the Science Council regarding its dissatisfaction with our science and research development program, will the minister make a statement to the house about government policy in the field of science before the house rises for summer recess?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure there will be an occasion within the time limit to do this. I will point out that three of the assumptions made by the hon. gentleman appear to be wrong. In the first place, the Science Council of Canada is not dissatisfied with the quality but rather the quantity or quantum of research and development in this country. The O.E.C.D. examiners likewise were not dissatisfied with the quality or, even to some degree, the quantity. In their view we were doing a satisfactory job on a relative basis in relation to other countries at which they looked. I repeat, I do not know that there will be an occasion to make such a
July 2, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry statement, but il there is I will be glad to do so because I think this is a very important topic, indeed.


David Lewis: I was not suggesting anything about the quality in respect of dissatisfaction. We are all talking about the amount which is being spent and the amount of research and development being done in Canada. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government is reducing or refusing to increase, which ever may be the case, its appropriations for research and development, and whether as a result of that there is a likelihood of loss of scientific personnel to Canada in this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is of very wide scope. I allowed the first question because the hon. member was asking whether a statement would be made on motions. I suggest the matter should not be pursued from there.



AIRPORTS

[Stage Direction]
OTTAWA-LANDING FEES CHARGED AT ,	UPLANDS
* y\ '
['I can answer the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, but the second part is hypothetical. I will certainly investigate the charges that have been made.']
Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is of an urgent nature. Is the Minister of Transport aware that as a result of non-competitive landing fees charged by his department and assessed against international flights, air carriers have cancelled their intention to use Uplands airport as a refuelling stop, resulting in extensive loss of revenue to the local economy?
j . . .
ji Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the allegations. I am not at all sure they are correct, but I will be glad to look into them and make a detailed report to the hon. member.

BOX CARS REQUIRED FOR DELIVERY OF ,1 *'	MINIMUM QUOTA


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Transport had any assurance from the railway companies that they will be able to provide the necessary box cars to enable all grain producers in western Canada 'to deliver a minimum five bushel quota before the end of the crop year which ends
the 31st of this month?
.1: '


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: I do not know that I can answer

the question categorically, Mr. Speaker. I can say that this is a matter which involves both my department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We are having conversations daily with the railway companies with a view to bringing about the result to which the hon. member has referred.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister will discuss this matter with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and report to the house before the end of the week?



Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government will look into the detailed report smuggled out of Greece, and presented to the Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg, which indicates that 15 women political prisoners in that country were tortured by Greek officials? If it is discovered that the report is authentic, will the government take the appropriate action to denounce this inhumanity which is quite inconsistent with the principles of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, to which both Canada and Greece belong?


Mitchell William Sharp: I can answer the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, but the second part is hypothetical. I will certainly investigate the charges that have been made.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. R. Souiham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he received a telegram from the 80,000 member Saskatchewan Wheat Pool in the last few days to the effect that escalating interest rates are seriously damaging the farm economy and that money required for agricultural productive purposes should be made available at lower cost? If he did, what was the minister's reply to this important representation?


Edgar John Benson: have not received the telegram, Mr. Speaker.
July 2, 1969	COMMONS



FISHERIES


Mr. Ray Perraull (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry tell the house whether the subject of dogfish and their disposition, is1 on the agenda of current meetings in British Columbia between the Minister of Fisheries and Japanese officials?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure this is a matter of urgency. If it is, perhaps the hon. member would like to return at ten o'clock this evening.


Raymond J. Perrault: Ten o'clock.



ST. JOHN'S, NFLD.-LICENSING OF FOREIGN VESSELS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries, notice of which has been given. It concerns the position taken by the Department of Fisheries, which is having a very detrimental effect on revenues in the port of St. John's, and arises out of licences which the department has authority to issue to foreign vessels to use Canadian ports.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would like to join the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour and return, not tonight but tomorrow night.



PRICE STABILITY. INCOMES AND EMPLOYMENT REQUEST FOR MEETING OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE-SITTINGS DURING RECESS

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and concerns government order No. 91 standing in his name. Does the government intend to proceed with the establishment of the Parliamentary Committee on Price Stability, Incomes and Employment before the adjournment of the session, so that this committee can sit during the recess?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council answered this question some days ago.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wonder whether the
minister would repeat his answer, Mr. Speaker, because we missed it over here.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



MAINTENANCE OF PASSENGER SERVICE STANDARD

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport with respect to the question asked last week by the right hon. member for Prince Albert regarding the lack of facilities and services on Canadian National Railways. I received representations over the weekend with regard to this matter. Is the minister now in a position to give the house a statement as to what Canadian National Railways intend to do about this deplorable situation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have initiated inquiries with the railways. They are both preparing answers, and I hope to have them to pass on to the house later this week.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has his attention been drawn to the announced increase of about 20 per cent in the price of natural gas as a result of increased shipments to the United States? If the minister's attention has been drawn to this matter, does he intend to refer it to the prices and incomes commission?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have not noticed the reports, Mr. Speaker. I will be happy to look into them. I think this is a matter which properly falls within the purview of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and I will bring it to his attention.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's responsibility for consumer prices in Canada and the serious effect that such an increase would have on consumer prices generally, is it the minister's intention to make representations before the National Energy Board?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I would like to look at the reports first, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of
10756	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport. In view of the serious1 tie-up in ferry traffic over the holiday weekend between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, is the department now prepared to put on sufficient crews to properly man the boats which should be operating, instead of their being tied up at the docks?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at the time the arrangements were made in this respect I gave an assurance that if it should develop that changes were necessary, we would be very pleased to look into them. If there be need to implement them, I undertake again to do that.



HARBOURS


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the Hudson Bay Route Association has requested that a Russian delegation, including senior officials of the Russian ministry of marine presently touring ports in the St. Lawrence area, also be shown the port facilities at Churchill, is the minister prepared to arrange for such a tour?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubts whether the question can be asked at this time.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St.
Bar be): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. Would he advise whether the minister has received a report from his officials regarding draggers interfering with the operations of fishermen in northwestern Newfoundland, and if so, could he advise what action the minister is undertaking?
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer this question now, so that I do not have to answer it at ten o'clock. We have received a report from the Department of Fisheries vessel m.v. Garria Bay which is on duty in the area. The captain has reported to our district director in the area that they have been patrolling at night when the draggers have been endangering the nets of fishermen. There has been very little

DEBATES	July 2, 1969
interference, if any. Our district director is going up there this weekend to make personal contact with the people who have made the complaints. We should have a further report at that time.



FINANCE


Mr. John Burfon (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Can the minister report to the house the results of the meetings he was to hold with the chartered banks near the end of June concerning interest rate levels and monetary matters?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the meeting was a private one. The matter of interest rates has been referred to a parliamentary committee. I trust that representatives of the banks will be appearing before that committee, as well as the governor of the Bank of Canada and other witnesses.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Was the prime loan rate of 8j per cent announced last Friday, one of the results of that meeting?


Edgar John Benson: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOCKEY-MANAGEMENT AT MAPLE LEAF GARDENS

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister completed the investigation of Harold Ballard and Stafford Smythe and their relationship to Maple Leaf Gardens? If so, what charges, if any, will be laid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This also is a question which might very well be considered and debated at the time of adjournment.


John Gilbert: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board concerning one of his investigative stepchildren, the task force on information. Can he advise
July 2, 1969	COMMONS
whether this task force recommended the establishment of a network of local information agencies across the country, and has the government come to any conclusion on this important matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the report of the task force is not, of course, made to me. However, I have read the same newspaper article as the hon. member and I think it appears from that article that the task force has not yet completed its report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will it be the intention of the government to make the report public when it is presented?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I mentioned the other day, Mr. Speaker, it would not necessarily be my decision whether or not it should be made public. Until such time as the report is received, it will be difficult to decide whether it should be made public.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry the President of the Privy Council. Could he indicate to the house whether or not he intends to call for discussion item No. 68 on the order paper regarding the cancellation of the Newfoundland passenger rail service and the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have announced the two remaining items to be dealt with in the balance of the session before the summer adjournment and we will stick by that announcement.



TERMINATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND SERVICE

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. As this is the last day of rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland,-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: -and as the government has decided to go against the unanimous wish of the people of Newfoundland by disallowing a number of appeals against this decision-


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the coroner's jury recommendation concerning the C.N.R. derailment near Toronto that there be a replacement of locking devices on railways switches because of the inadequacy of present devices, and their recommendation for an increase in inspections of the track in the New Woodbine area, has the minister initiated any action to ensure that positive steps are taken to implement these recommendations?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in the house on a number of occasions the actions that have been taken with regard to the whole question of rail line safety. These are being pursued in the manner I outlined.


John Leroy Skoberg: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recommendations of the coroner's jury in this regard, has the minister taken positive action in this direction?


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot make a speech; he can only ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: I was merely trying to preface my question, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Transport, who delivered the coup de grace yesterday on behalf of the government, is this: Is it now government policy to abandon all rail passenger services in Canada that are not a paying proposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the hon. member is asking the minister to make a general statement on policy. The question as asked is not in order.



INCOME TAX


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the very widespread impression that tax refunds are much slower than usual this year, I ask whether it is the policy of the department to slow up the payment of these refunds or withhold them in order to preserve the cash position of the government?

July 2, 1969
Official Languages



CONSUMER CREDIT


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question, for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I think that this one is really for him. Now that the truth-in-lending bill has become law in the United States, enabling consumers to know at the outset exactly what their credit purchase will cost, and in view of the fact that a Senate-House of Commons committee recommended such legislation for Canada in February, 1967, does the government plan to introduce such legislation to protect consumers and if so, when?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, most provinces have already enacted truth-in-lending legislation. Some two years ago the regulations under the Bank Act were amended to provide truth-in-lending under the act. There were further discussions on this subject at the last federal-provincial conference on consumer affairs two months ago, and there seemed to be very little suggestion at that time that there needed to be amendments in the existing structure of the truth-in-lending legislation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I have a supplementary question. I think the minister missed my second "in view of", that is in view of the fact that the Senate-House of Commons committee recommended such legislation for Canada in February of 1967, does the government plan to introduce such legislation to protect consumers, and if so, when?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It seems, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the supplementary question is argumentative.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 27, consideration of Bill C-120, respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, as reported, (with amendments) from the Special Committee on the Official Languages Bill and motion No. 6 (Mr. Baldwin).
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, when this matter was last debated we were discussing the amendment to clause 38 in the name of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). We are in favour of the principle of clause 38 which safeguards the effects which the act might have on the rights and privileges of all languages other than the two official languages. But on examining carefully the original clause 38 and the amendment, we came to the conclusion that the original clause was broader in scope and more satisfactory than the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River.
I find myself somewhat embarrassed at entering into a legal discussion with the hon. member for Peace River, and I can assure the house that I will not prolong the legal aspect of the discussion. I would like to point out that clause 38, as presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and approved by the special committee, provides that nothing in the act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege with respect to any language that is not an official language. The house will note the words "legal or customary right" and the addition of the words "or privilege". The amendment of the hon. member for Peace River, however, refers to the right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages and says that right shall not be restricted in its natural development in any way.
It will be observed that the words "legal and customary" are not included in the amendment, nor is any reference to the privileges that may have developed in relation to languages other than the two official languages. Lawyers and legal experts have been discussing for many centuries and in many volumes the precise meaning of the word "right" as against "privilege", and the refinements of what constitutes rights and what constitutes privileges. However that may be, it appears fairly obvious to us that the addition of the word "privilege" may widen the scope, and the omission of this word may narrow the scope of this very healthy and worthwhile clause. I think all members of the house unanimously agree that the clause seeks to protect the rights of those who speak a third language. It is also to be noted that the amendment refers to the right to speak one language only. There may well be, and probably are, broader rights with regard to language than merely the right to speak a language. Once again, it seems to us that the
July 2, 1969

amendment, or the interpretation we put on it at any rate, is a restriction rather than an expansion of the original section. For that reason, we reject it.
In our view there is another difficulty with the proposed amendment to clause 38 which refers to the right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages, which shall not be restrained or restricted in its natural development in any way. I do not know whether the hon. member for Peace River explained this when I was not present in the house, although I do not think so, but we are puzzled by what is meant by the development of a language in a natural way. I hear a voice from the back giving me some advice, but I could not understand it. In any event, it is our view-much as we agree with the general sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Peace River and our colleagues over here-that clause 38 as originally drafted is preferable in form, broader and less restrictive than the amendment. For that reason we cannot support the amendment.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity given me during the debate on this very important legislation-on the official languages, Bill C-120-to make a few remarks on amendment to clause 38.
Clause 38 is designed to guarantee the rights and privileges of languages spoken by Canadians who are neither of English nor of French origin.
I think I understand very well the feelings of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). I also received from several Canadians letters expressing their doubts and their fears in that respect.
Mr. Speaker, clause 38 drafted and introduced in this house by the government says:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this Act with respect to any language that is not an official language.

There were celebrations commemorating Canadian confederation yesterday and during the weekend preceding July 1, and I am sure many members have taken part in many interesting, exciting and stimulating events. I have come to this chamber fresh from Toronto where yesterday, and the whole of the last weekend, we have had a very stimulating and
Official Languages
exciting time. During that time, thousands of Canadians viewed the exhibits in metropolitan Toronto's international caravan. This caravan displayed the arts and crafts of Canadians of various ethnic origins. More than 33 so-called "world cities" showed us the richness of the Canadian mosaic. I have had the privilege of speaking to many of the participants and organizers of this caravan, and I should like publicly to express words of commendation to the people of the Community Folk Arts Council who organized this event. In particular, I should like to mention Mr. John Fisher, Mr. Leon Kossar and Stephen Vojtech who were among the animators of this exciting event, which showed to all of Canada the rich cultures which this country possesses. It was very different from the dull celebrations which took place in Ottawa yesterday as reported by the Canadian Press in one of the Toronto daily newspapers. I think, for example, that the program which took place in the National Arts Centre did not reflect the multicultural, pluralistic Canada which exists. I think too the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) would do well to find out all the circumstances under which this program was organized.
Let me state that I support the principle of Bill C-120 which will make English and French the official languages in matters having to do with the parliament of Canada, the courts and the public service, as well as federal agencies serving the Canadian people. I think this bill is long overdue and that Canadians of English and French origins might have expected such a measure a long time ago. However, many doubts and fears about this bill have been expressed by Canadians of other than English and French origins. They would like more assurances from the government as far as the future of their languages and cultures are concerned. There is a danger that while avoiding the United States melting-pot we might fall into another disaster, that of two melting-pots. I think it is the duty of the Secretary of State to enunciate what is really the policy of the Canadian government as far as the development of Canadian culture is concerned.
Today, 30 per cent of Canadians are neither of French nor English origin. They have contributed tremendously to the development of the nation. Their children and their grandchildren of tomorrow will be citizens of this country, and they have the right to expect a statement of policy as far as their mother languages and cultures are concerned. In my view, more attention should be paid to the

Official Languages
development and preservation of the languages and cultures of Canadians who are not of English or French origin. All too often the assistance which comes from the Department of the Secretary of State amounts to a pittance in terms of the promotion of ethnic cultures. I should like to appeal at this stage of the debate to the Secretary of State to reassure all Canadians as to the development of a cultural policy.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask the hon. member a question? I take it from his remarks that he is in sympathy with the amendment we are discussing. I should like to ask him whether he intends to support it.


Stanley Haidasz: I am awaiting further assurance from the Secretary of State with regard to the development, preservation and promotion of the other cultures and languages. I realize that the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism has not made its report on the other languages and cultures in this country. However, in order to dispel the fears and doubts expressed by some Canadians, I hope it will be possible for us in this chamber to hear from the Secretary of State once again the assurance he has given in other places.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I appreciate the hon. member's forthright answer.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: can be very brief in my remarks this afternoon. May I indicate at the outset that I am heartily in favour of the amendment to clause 38 which has been advanced by my hon. friend from Peace River. It is one with which I am sure every member who understand the mosaic aspect of Canadian cultural and linguistic development will sympathize. Indeed,
I would like to have put forward the amendment myself.
Listening to the hon. member who has just spoken, I thought his remarks could fairly be interpreted as an endorsation of the amendment. One of the unhappy aspects of the debate so far has been the government's reluctance to accept any amendments either from its own supporters or from members of the opposition dealing with the more discriminatory features of the bill. These shortcomings have been brought out in earlier contributions which I have made to the discussion. However, from the point of view of the new Canadianism which operates with particular force in the western provinces, and in some of the larger metropolitan communities, little has been done by legislative action to 
July 2, 1969
remove those discriminatory features from the legislation.
I feel that the amendment proposed by my hon. friend would have this effect. Clause 38, in its original form, says that nothing shall be done to derogate from or diminish in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this act with respect to any language which is not an official language. At the same time, the clause does nothing in a positive sense to recognize what has become a major fact of life in our Canadian mosaic. I refer to the enrichment that has come from the recognition of the contribution of new Canadians from many countries of Europe, indeed from many parts of the world, and also of the creative force that they have contributed in making Canada a nation which over the years has been the cynosure of hope from the standpoint of goodwill and tolerance.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
The amendment proposed accentuates the positive and not the negative. Perhaps I can indicate how this is so and how the original clause 38 is improved immensely. Clause 38(2) as proposed in amended form reads:
The Governor in Council may by order in council enter into an agreement with the government of any province which has been authorized by legislation so to do, for the purpose of encouraging natural development of any such minority language especially as regards the use of such language in matters of education.
In other words, the amendment is suggesting not only that there be the negative stance of doing nothing to remove what has been achieved thus far; it also includes the positive approach, namely that there be official encouragement in the bill of the further development of the cultural and linguistic mosaic that has become a distinctive part of many sections of Canada, particularly, as I have already indicated, western Canada and the large metropolitan, urban communities.
Perhaps one of the most dynamic communities in this regard is the city of Toronto, which since the end of world war II has become one of the great centres of cultural diversity in this nation. The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the dynamism of this new spirit of Canadianism that marked the celebrations in that city as recently as yesterday.
I am afraid that the government of Canada, as it exists at the present time, is not at all cognizant of this important fact in Canadian
July 2, 1969



cultural development. The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), in speeches that he has made on these matters over the past few months, has referred to cultural deserts that exist in various parts of Canada. That is a phrase that is very heavily laden, of course, with value judgment. There has never been any indication of what parts of Canada are included in the minister's designation as cultural deserts. There is a strong feeling in western Canada that theirs is the area that has been described in such discriminatory terms by the Secretary of State. I think I can say that with some justification, following the events that took place just a week ago in the province of Manitoba. It was quite obvious that the good citizens of Manitoba, a province that enjoys a cultural diversity that is second to none in Canada, was not in agreement with the stance, the posture and the program of the government of Canada with respect to the recognition of the cultural rights of that part of this country, or for that matter in agreement with the more basic issue, of course, that of the economic rights of the province of Manitoba.
The city of Winnipeg is one of the larger urban centres of Canada. There, we have a bicultural and bilingual community that has existed on the banks of the Red River almost since the beginning of confederation. But in the midst of this bilingual and bicultural community we also have this new fact of Canadian confederation, the Canadian mosaic that is now recognized by almost everybody, except this government, as one of the most progressive and hopeful aspects of our continuing progress toward national unity. In the city of Winnipeg as well as in rural parts of Manitoba there are radio stations broadcasting in other languages, such as German and Ukrainian. This is in response to the demand of a large segment of the population of Manitoba for the preservation of their rights in this respect. The ethnic communities concerned have voluntarily paid the expenses incurred in preserving their cultural identity.
In Manitoba there is also a strong ethnic press that has been thriving to a growing extent as a result of the onward march of this mosaic concept. This ethnic press recently suffered a severe economic setback, one which extends across the board to weekly newspapers and other publications of this kind, inasmuch as the new postal rates for small publications of this sort were set so high that it will be difficult for the ethnic press to survive.
Official Languages
This is where the discrimination, of which the government does not even seem to be aware, arises. On the one hand, the government provides cultural assistance to English and French-speaking minority groups wherever they exist in Canada; on the other hand, the government completely ignores, and in fact discriminates against, the efforts of the other ethnic groups to preserve their own identity as a creative force in the great Canadian cultural and linguistic mosaic.
As I have already indicated, subsection (2) of clause 38 as proposed in this amendment accentuates the positive. It makes legislative provision for encouraging this development, rather than merely taking a status quo approach to the question. Not being a lawyer, I am not too sure of the meaning of the term "status quo" but I once heard a definition to the effect that status quo was Latin for the mess we are in. I am not sure whether that is the correct definition. Be that as it may this proposed subsection does not take a static approach but rather a dynamic approach. As I have said, if the government has been unaware of the cultural dynamism that exists in Manitoba and the other western provinces, I am sure that the message has come through loud and clear as a result of the events of last Wednesday. The Liberal Party in the province of Manitoba has been sunk almost without trace, as it deserved to be under the circumstances.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: What about the other parties?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I hear a comment from across the way, what about the other parties? I presume the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is referring to the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party.


John Napier Turner: I am just suggesting that the undertaker also got buried.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I thought they did quite well under the circumstances. As a matter of fact, the New Democratic Party is doing exceedingly well these days. There have been further defections from the Liberal to the New Democratic Party of which the hon. minister might not be aware. One of the leading Liberals in that province-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is far from the subject of the amendment before the house.

July 2, 1969
Official Languages


David Lewis: Ke is more interesting though, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to clarify the interjection by the Minister of Justice in relation to a very important event that took place in Manitoba last week.
There is a very fundamental point I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members of this house with respect to the cultural rights of Canadians across the country. I refer, of course, to the basic rights of our first Canadians, the Indians and Eskimos. I refer to them at this time, Mr. Speaker, because a statement was made in the house within recent days to the effect that the Liberal Government in Ottawa intends to completely ignore their responsibilities in this respect. Over the relatively short period of five years, they are going to hand over to the provinces the responsibility for looking after the long neglected rights of the Indians. Bearing this in mind, I think the amendment before the house becomes all the more important. It provides the legislative authority for the government in Ottawa to encourage the natural development of any minority language, especially in so far as the use of such language relates to education at the provincial level. I believe this is perhaps the most telling argument I can use in urging the hon. members who support the government to vote for the amendment which would remove some of the more discriminatory aspects of the clause as it applies to other minorities in this country.
This is my final word on the matter at this stage. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been criticizing the press for failing to get the message through to the people of Canada. I suppose this would be his explanation of what happened in Manitoba last week. Someone has said, I think with a good deal of wisdom, that it is not the medium that is at fault so far as government action is concerned, it is the message. I trust the message has been received loud and clear and that we will have the support of the Minister of Justice, the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) and all of their colleagues in removing this element of discrimination which is causing a growing feeling of alienation in western Canada and is leading to a protest that can only be compared to that which existed in the 1920's and 1930's.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the amendment posed by the hon. member for Peace
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
River (Mr. Baldwin). As I read his amendment, it has two objects. The first is to provide a written guarantee in the statute that the natural development of any language other than an official language shall not be restrained or restricted. The hon. member uses the words "restrained" and "restricted". The second object of the amendment as I read it is to assist the provinces in encouraging natural development of any such minority language, that is to say any language other than English or French especially with regard to the use of such language in the matter of education.
From the tenure of the speeches of the hon. members for Peace River, Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and now the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), the amendment is put forth in the belief, and this is the allegation of the hon. members who spoke, that minority groups in this country which are not of British or French origin feel that somehow they are being discriminated against by the provisions of the official languages bill.
This amendment is very similar in form and content to the one proposed before the special committee by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk). As hon. members know, at that time we dealt with it very thoroughly and the arguments relevant and pertaining to the amendment were discussed. In order to deal with it on the floor of the house, I have to repeat some of the words I addressed to the special committee.
When I was in western Canada negotiating with the western Attorneys-General, and on other occasions, I found great concern. I believe this concern is largely as a result of misunderstanding of what this bill is really about. There is great concern that the bill discriminates against those seven million or eight million people who are of neither English or French stock, and that this in effect sets up a type of second class citizenship. I said in committee, and it was expressed in far more eloquent terms before the special committee by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), that this bill in no way alters the relationship of citizenship in this country. As far as this government is concerned there is and always will be, and certainly this is not being altered by the bill itself, only one class of citizen in this country.
Those who have come to this country from other nations as immigrants have found themselves in a position where they have had to accept the facts as they exist. Those who
July 2, 1989



have come from Europe, Asia and other continents find that there are two languages in general circulation and having general recognition in official and governmental circles. Depending on the part of the country into which they immigrate, they choose either English or French. The riding that I held before it was redistributed out of existence by the commissioners prior to the last election, Montreal-St. Lawrence-St. George, in which the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) grew up when he first came to this country, had at least 45 different language groups. Depending on the language, depending on the associations of the parents and the traditions of a group within the Canadian context, immigrants and their children opted for either English or French.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Most of the Italian community in Montreal opted for French. Practically all of the Greek community opted for English. Of those Canadians of Polish origin, some opted for English and some for French. The same applied to those Canadians of Hungarian origin. In other parts of Canada, and particularly western Canada, the great wave of immigration that populated the west and contributed to making Canada a great country, opted for the English language. The problem is that this is the way the immigrants found the country. This is the way the country is, and there is nothing in the bill or in institutional bilingualism which in any way deprives any of these groups of their own language, or their cultural and community traditions. As a matter of fact, in order to make that perfectly clear clause 38 of the bill is quite categoric:
Nothing in this act shall he construed as derogating from or diminishing in any way any legal or customary right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either before or after the coming into force of this act with respect to any language that is not an official language.
The wording in this clause is deliberate. I want to say, in the strongest terms to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that we accept the fact that his amendment is a sincere attempt to meet the problem that its sponsor sees of reassuring those groups in Canada that are neither of French nor British origin, but through you, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to him that the wording he submits does not achieve any improvement upon clause 38. On the contrary, we have the feeling that the wording proposed by the hon. member for Peace River would inhibit, restrict and curtail
Official Languages
rather than enhance the provisions of clause 38.
The problem is that in an attempt to reassure the groups which the sponsors say feel are discriminated against, the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River may raise the very questions that it attempts to resolve. The first paragraph of the amendment reads: The right to speak a language other than either of the two official languages shall not be restrained or restricted-
This implies that there is something restricted at the moment, that there are present restrictions in being, and the inference in the amendment is that there may be some restrictions that do not exist at the moment. On the other hand, clause 38 as it now stands is quite categoric and positive in saying that no right, no custom, no privilege, whether enshrined in the law or not, shall in any way be diminished or derogated from by the coming into force of this bill.
I pose this question to the house: Would the amendment proposed cover the present recognition of the right of a person to the assistance of an interpreter if he does not understand or speak the language of a court before which he appears? Certainly, it is more doubtful under the wording of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Peace River than it is under clause 38.
As the hon. member for York South said of this aspect of the amendment in the special committee, and I hope he will pardon me if I quote him:
I suggest to him-
That is to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).
-that the language of the present clause 38 is much wider and it provides much better protection than his subclause (1) for precisely the kind of thing he has in mind. I am confident that the present clause 38 gives much more protection because it is not limited in any way.
Clause 38 is a blanket provision because it does not imply, as the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River does, that there may be present restrictions, and we believe that the purposes sought by the hon. member for Peace River and the other sponsors of the amendment would be better obtained under the categorical provisions of clause 38.
Let us look at the second object of the amendment which is to authorize the Governor in Council, by order in council, to enter into an agreement with the government of any province for the purpose of encouraging the natural development of what is called a

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
minority language which, within the definition of the amendment, is a language other than French or English.


David Lewis: After the province has passed legislation.


John Napier Turner: After the province has passed legislation. First of all, we believe this paragraph of the amendment is out of context in that the bill deals with official languages and this amendment deals with those languages that are not official. Further, it contemplates federal legislation in a matter dealing with education which might well, if spelled out within the context of this bill, involve us in a constitutional problem.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is always open to the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), in the course of the administration of his department, to enter into an agreement to enhance the natural development of any cultural or minority group in this country. We believe that imposing this type of structure goes beyond the scope of the bill and would trespass in rather specific terms on educational matters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


John Napier Turner: I will be finished in about 30 seconds. If this legislation receives the approval of the house, we count on the co-operation of hon. members to dispel any misunderstanding, particularly in western Canada, that there is anything discriminatory in its provisions relating to any cultural or language group in this country. We believe that clause 38 grants a blanket, over-all, complete protection to any Canadian in this country whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, and does it in a positive, categorical way, whereas the amendment proposed1 by the hon. member for Peace River is more restrictive, is narrower, might well trespass on difficult constitutional ground and would not achieve the results he hopes to achieve but rather would provoke more questions than answers.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: I would like to ask a question relating to the second part of the amendment.
Does the minister want to suggest that the federal government would interfere in an area of provincial jurisdiction, namely education, were a province to decide the adoption of legislation relating to education, and more (Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .1
precisely to languages other than French and English? Would the federal government interfere directly in the field of education if, after such legislation is passed, it were to conclude agreements in order to help that province offer to other minorities a better education in a language which is neither English nor French? Is the minister of the opinion that such action on the part of the federal government would amount to interference in a provincial jurisdiction, since the provincial legislation would already have been passed?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: That depends again on the terms of the agreement between the province and the federal government. I cannot anticipate all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question because many members of parliament have received letters from Canadian Indians whose native tongue is not one of the official languages. Some of these people, particularly in the province of Quebec, are concerned because rightly or wrongly the missionary penetration in these areas has been by English speaking people, so they speak their native tongue and the English language but do not speak French. They are a little worried about this. In view of the terms of this bill and the fact that the affairs of the Indians are being turned over holus-bolus, to the provinces,, they are concerned that perhaps there is to be a different kind of penetration in this area.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That is a good question.


John Napier Turner: The question is so hypothetical I have difficulty answering it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: It is not hypothetical to the Indians.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says it is hypothetical, but with the greatest respect I say the Indians do not think that. Does the minister expect that an Indian who speaks a native tongue would have to change to English or French, particularly the senior Indians? Is there any thought that they will have to switch languages?


John Napier Turner: If I remember and understand the declaration of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
July 2, 1969

Development (Mr. Chretien), I believe he suggested a good deal of consultation between the federal government and the provinces and between the federal government and the Indian bands will be required. But so far as I know, that consideration did not enter into the government's deliberations.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Obviously.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 75 the recorded vote on the proposed motion stands deferred.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the house would consider reverting to the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams), which was deferred because it was thought advisable to proceed with the other motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That BUI C-120, An Act respecting the status of the official languages of Canada, be amended by inserting therein, next following clause 34 thereof, the following new clause:
34A. Where an individual, department or institution is aggrieved by a report or recommendation of the Commissioner, or by a decision made by him or other person or authority acting upon his report or recommendation, the individual, department or institution may appeal in respect of such report or recommendation on a finding of fact, a question of law or a matter of the merits to a superior court of record within thirty days after the individual, department or institution is first informed of the report or recommendation; the court may proceed by way of hearing or review and shall make such order therein as the court deems just and such order shall be final.
Official Languages
He said: Mr. Speaker, before commencing the main argument in respect of my motion I should like to request two small changes in the drafting of the amendment. In the fifth line where it reads "in respect of such report or recommendation" I should like to add the words "and decision". Also, in the eighth line where it reads "informed of the report or recommendation" I should like to add the words "and decision". This would mean that there would be an appeal in respect of the report, recommendation and decision. I wonder whether the house would allow this change.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I shall come immediately to grips with my amendment. It adds a new subclause to clause 34 to cover the following points. Where a Canadian citizen, a department of the federal government, an agency of the government or an institution, which means a Crown corporation or ordinary corporation- private enterprise-feel themselves aggrieved, I believe there should be an appeal when the commissioner makes a report in a particular area and makes a decision as a result of the report. In other words, I feel that where an individual or executive of a department or any agency of the government or any Crown corporation feel themselves aggrieved by a decision made by the all-powerful commissioner, they should have the right of appeal. I think this would affect the rights of Canadian minorities, even the French Canadians, more than English Canadians. I should like particularly to come to grips with what the minister said in his argument.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
When he was dealing with the powers of this almighty commissioner, the minister said, as recorded at page 367 of the committee report:
The commissioner is merely an investigator and therefore there would be no reason for an appeal.
All during the minister's speech today he was flattering another member of parliament, and he got some support from the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) in that regard. I should like to read two quotations from the very able speech delivered by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid), which appear at page 10347 of Hansard of June 17.

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
He was dealing with this subject of appeal and he said:
It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, for me to stress the importance of this official who is to be the commissioner of our official languages. What I think I should stress is the importance of our having some control over this man who is charged with such an important task. The way he performs that task will affect the destiny of Canada and touch the lives of a great many Canadians. It is in this area that I take exception to this bill. I take exception to the power that parliament has vested in this one man who is to be the commissioner of languages.
Later, on the same page we find this:
I know that the government spokesman in the committee said that the commissioner is not conducting a court, and I agree it is not a court.
I am going to show that I agree it is not a court, but I also intend to show that his powers are as great as, if not greater than, any court in the land. In fact, they are certainly greater than those of the Chief Justice of Canada. The hon. member for Cardigan then said:
But I do not agree that the powers of the commissioner are quite as frivolous or trivial as the minister would have us believe. I should like to put on the record a statement made by the Minister of Justice during the hearings on this bill in committee, as reported at page 367 of report No. 5. This is what the minister said the commissioner is empowered to do:
"The commissioner is an investigator."
The hon. member then made a comment and went on to quote the minister as follows: The minister continued:
"He proceeds in a purely administrative fashion; his object is not to prosecute or lay charges, or to assess blame or guilt. His job is simply to ensure that the departments of governments, as institutions, are fulfilling the purposes and the spirit of this proposed act. It is not his function to decide or to adjudicate upon the rights or obligations of any individual. It is just not his duty and not in his power."
I was not a member of that committee, although I did appear on several occasions. The hon. member for Cardigan then continued as follows:
I should like to compare that with the statement made by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) when he appeared before the same committee and spoke of the powers of the commissioner. This is what the Secretary of State had to say as reported at page 35 of report No. 1:
"The specific task of the official languages commissioner, as I see it, is to make sure that the provisions of the law are enforced, that nobody is lagging behind, that there is truly an effort to enforce this bill as efficiently as possible within the delay set by the bill for the government, in the last clause."

So I say at the outset that we have two different positions taken. The first was taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) on the one hand, who has graciously piloted the bill through for the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), and the other-


Gérard Pelletier: Would the hon. member accept a question? Will he read the sentence following the quotation he has read from what I said before the committee?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to be able to read it but I have my speech prepared, and typed. If the minister said anything different, I am quite prepared to let him read it because I would not want to put anything on the record which might mislead in respect of anything he did say, or misrepresent his ambition in respect of the implementation of this act.


Gérard Pelletier: The first reference is-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister will have an opportunity to make a speech. All we have heard from him so far has been one or two comments. Let me continue with the quotation I was referring to before I flushed out the minister.
If the minister believes the commissioner is merely an investigator, then his function I suggest is similar to that of a police officer or any other person acting in the capacity of a detective-we know what a detective does, he investigates-who investigates some complaint when someone reasonably believes there has been a violation of some law. The police go out and investigate when they reasonably believe there has been a violation of the Criminal Code. When you hired a private detective to find out what was going on in the bedrooms when adultery was the only grounds under the old law of divorce, he investigated. That is what an investigator does.
Let us see what kind of function this little old investigator has. Let me ask these simple questions. Can an investigator, a police officer or a detective under the law of Canada summon witnesses? Can the R.C.M.P. summon witnesses? Can these investigators compel witnesses to come in and give oral and written evidence under oath? The answer is no. If they did, any statement taken in that way would be declared inadmissible by any court of competent jurisdiction.
Can an investigator force a person to produce documents against his will without a
July 2. 1969

search warrant? Remember, this is just a little old ordinary investigator! Can an investigator administer oaths to witnesses, like a court, while in the process of investigating? What a hue and cry would have gone up in Canada if the R.C.M.P. when investigating in respect of narcotics in Banff, last week end, had called all these youths together and said: on the bible, you are going to swear what you have been doing; what you have been sniffing and what trips you have taken. People would have said that was the greatest invasion of civil rights ever seen in Canada.
Could an investigator hold hearings? Did you ever hear of an investigator holding a hearing in camera locking the doors and pulling down the blinds? Could he then admit evidence under oath and by affidavit in accordance with the rules governing a court of record? That is what this investigator can do. He can use all the powers of any court in the land. This Commissioner has even greater powers than that. He can hear evidence that is not admissible in any court in the land. According to this Minister of Justice, in his suave manner and able argument, this is just merely a little old investigator.
Could an investigator demand that a person complained about confess by affidavit, indicating at least some culpability? If the R.C.M.P. or the city police did that, the statement or affidavit, as the able lawyer knows, would be inadmissible because there would immediately be a voir dire. He knows what would happen. Could an investigator hold a hearing in his private office, in camera without the person who is complained about-sort of a star chamber attack on an accused person-being present or even notified? The hon. member for York South goes along with this. He says the Commissioner is merely an investigator.
This is the kind of power this man has. He can summon witnesses; he can call evidence; he can hold hearings in camera; he can admit affidavits; he can seize documents without a search warrant, yet he is merely like the R.C.M.P., just a casual little old investigator. There is no appeal from that kind of power. We have heard niceties and arguments from the minister in respect of all these acts which are basically judicial procedures. I have sat here for days listening to him talk about the difference between judicial or ministerial acts and judicial procedures. That is straight hog-wash, and I am going to quote from the Supreme Court of Canada to show that where a power, whether or not it is administrative,
Official Languages
is identical to the powers of a court and where human rights and civil rights are affected there should be some form of appeal.
I wish there were more French Canadians in the chamber listening to me. They are a minority in Canada. What would happen to this nation if-and I hope it does not happen- one government elected wi,h a majority of 150 seats appointed one of these investigators, who then started to run slipshod over the minority of French Canadians in this country? As a trial lawyer, and as a man who believes in civil rights in this nation, I would be the first to raise my voice. I cannot believe the argument the minister has brought in as a red herring, that there is nothing wrong. He suggests that we put this bill through and appoint this almighty and powerful investigator, with all the powers of the courts and the right to go to work on this nation.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Could a policeman search a place of business without a search warrant? Could he search a government office, a Crown corporation or a government agency without a warrant and without notification, like the S.S. storm troopers used to do all over Germany and all over Europe? In this case, all the investigator will lack is a bicycle. The storm troopers always travelled around on bicycles.
The minister has referred to him as a straight investigator.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Gerald William Baldwin: How straight?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: After all these procedures, this all powerful and bilingual God makes recommendations and reports and follows through like the Secretary of State-who is not here now-to see whether someone is acting on the report. He then makes a decision, yet the minister says there should be no appeal from that decision. The minister suggests there is no need for the right of appeal, even though the investigator has that much power. As a matter of fact, it will likely be the same minister or the same head of a department who will make the decision. The commissioner will be entitled to use all the force at his command to find out why his recommendations have not been followed; yet the government says this man is merely an investigator and does not make any decisions. He comes to a decision when he investigates a matter and makes a recommendation in his

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
report. His recommendations will affect individuals in this country. The decision is made by a department of government. What will the C.B.C., which is a grandiose agency of the government, say if the investigator is allowed to go through all their documents, hear witnesses, take affidavits, hold hearings in camera and change those things which the C.B.C. feels should not be changed? How will the C.B.C. react in this situation? Does the C.B.C. know this bill gives that kind of power to this little, old investigator? Let us consider clause 31 (2) of the bill, which is to be found at page 18 and 19. It provides as follows:
Where the commissioner is of opinion
(a)	that the act or omission that was the subject of the investigation should be referred to any department or other institution concerned for consideration and action if necessary-
This clause refers to an act or omission. That is all the judgment of a court is; it is all the order of an administrative board is. The clause continues:
(b)	that any act or regulations thereunder described in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) should be reconsidered or any practice described in that paragraph should be altered or discontinued, or
(c)	that any other action should be taken-
The commissioner will be given the power to act as a result of recommendations he makes in his report. Action spells decision; decision means judgment, or in the case of a board, an order. I emphasize the danger to any minority group in this nation when power is banded to a man who is called an investigator. The commissioner will be all-powerful, chosen by an all-powerful cabinet with an all-powerful majority. Citizens of Canada will be subject to decisions of the commissioner without the right of a hearing. Clause 31 (2) (c) continues:
-the commissioner shall report his opinion-
I point out that this is what he shall do.
-and his reasons therefor to the Clerk of the Privy Council and the deputy head or other administrative head of any department or other institution concerned and may in his report make such recommendations with respect thereto as he thinks fit, and, in any such case, may request the department or other institution concerned to notify him within a specified time of the action, if any, that it proposes to take to give effect to his recommendations.
What will happen if a deputy minister refuses to do what the commissioner tells him to do in his recommendation? I am concerned about how these decisions will affect the citizens of my nation. Under the provisions of the bill the livelihood of a Canadian can be taken away by the judgment or decision of
[Mr. Woolliams.l
one man. In my opinion, this principle is much more dangerous than any we can think about. Surely, the right to hold one's job, to work, to obtain promotion, is the human and civil right of every Canadian. I have some knowledge of jurisprudence, and in my reading of this bill I cannot see that safeguards are written into it for Canadians.
Parliament has been described in glowing terms by the Minister of Justice as the highest court in the land. No one denies this. But this is not a court in which justice is handled expeditiously. If an individual or the head of a department is aggrieved and has to come to this wise institution for a decision, what will happen to his family and his livelihood while parliament moves, since it moves so slowly? How long will it take an individual, a department head, a C.B.C. employee or an employee of Canadian National Railways to obtain justice from this court? God help Canadians! Parliament is a place in which many political influences are exercised. I ask hon. members to just think of the hanky-panky that goes on in committees. Members of the house do things for political reasons.


Gerald William Baldwin: Especially the Liberals.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: This is the reason we have an independent judiciary in this country; we need a court to act above politics, a body to do a job without the prejudice which results from political reasoning. I should like to quote from the Ottawa Law Review, Volume 12, page 72, of the fall of 1967 as follows:
Thus, the real argument is not whether the executive, for example, is exercising legislative or judicial powers which properly belong to parliament or the courts (for no kind of power belongs to any particular authority) but whether the power is being exercised by the authority best suited to exercise it and whether the exercise is sufficiently controlled by political and legal action.
In other words, what is the best body in this democracy of ours to exercise a judicial decision, undertake a review or hear an appeal-parliament, or the courts? The late President Roosevelt wanted a bill passed to increase the number of judges of the Supreme Court of the United States so that the law would be interpreted as he saw fit. That may be right or wrong, but the fact is that the courts are independent of political influence. This institution may be a court, but it is involved with politics. The minister is a political beast; I am a political beast; everyone in this institution is, if he is honest with himself.
July 2, 1969


Mr. Pelleiier:: I am not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: With the exception of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), who says he is not political.


John Napier Turner: And I am
not a beast.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As Griffith and Street state, Parliament is not suited for the job of looking after justice, because it lacks independence. By the time a decision has been made some deserving Canadian's job has been on the line, his career is at an end, his university training, his skill, experience, etc., have been thrown in the wastepaper basket.
What will this do to scientific research in this nation? If a French-Canadian scientist is removed from his job because he refuses to speak English, we are denied the talents of this great man. He has no appeal; he is in the hands of this simple, little, old investigator appointed by a very powerful cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Time!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Somebody says "Time". I can understand that my hon. friends on the government back benches are not interested in civil rights. They have been told by their party to rush this bill through and it does not matter what happens to Canadians.
What will this policy do to the economic decisions of the nation which must be made by dedicated public servants? I do not take this situation as lightly as hon. members opposite. How would the press like this kind of treatment? How would C.B.C. employees like it? How would C.T.V. employees like it? I ask again: Will the employees of the C.B.C. like it? We shall wait and see. May these people have some protection? There should be an appeal to a superior court so that justice not only will be done but will appear to be done. The powers and decisions which will emanate from this commissioner will create real fear in the hearts and minds of all men and women dedicated to the public service. There are approximately 70 federal seats west of the Great Lakes. There are 74 federal seats in the province of Quebec. We talk of national unity; that is the great candy that is always held in front of the Canadian people. There cannot be national unity for one side of the country and not for the other.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I speak for western Canada. People in that part of the country demand justice. Westerners should have an equal opportunity in the
Official Languages
Public Service of Canada. They demand justice for the dedicated citizens of Canada in the public service of our country because our universities in western Canada have produced some of the great scientists, lawyers and politicians of our nation just like any other parts of Canada. If they fail to receive this kind of justice, the movements toward separation will grow stronger. I am certain that western Canada, with its some 70 constituencies would ask for the right to appeal. Without it, masses of people of all races and cultures will be discriminated against and science, economy and politics will suffer. This nation will never be able to remove the pockets of poverty in its great urban centres if we cannot compete economically with the rest of the world.
At the flick of an eye in the United States the Canadian stock market descends into the basement and our interest rates ascend into the attic. To remain independent, a nation must receive the best advice in all fields from dedicated men and women in the public service, who must not be discriminated against. Why should a hearing be held in camera? Is that the kind of justice to which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is accustomed? Why should a complaint be made against any person or any department without that person being represented by counsel or without being present?
I wish to quote now the late Mackenzie King, a member of the Liberal party, and I am sure members of that party will agree with these words. They relate to the law which the all-powerful commissioner will be able to implement:
Now let us come to another point, which I wish particularly to stress. I refer to the right set out in Magna Carta that no man shall be dispossessed of his rights without the lawful judgment of his peers under the law of the land: not the law as made by the Governor in Council, not the law as made by some unnamed and as yet unexisting body, but the law of the land as known to everyone. It is an essential principle of liberty and freedom that the law of the land should be known, that it should be so known that every man as he runs may read. The law should not be something which is to make its appearance in the Canada Gazette after some board or Governor in Council, not parliament, has passed a regulation; it is something that should appear in the statutes of the country.
The kind of law that is going to be implemented by the commissioner is not even published in the Canada Gazette; it is a secret law. No one knows how the commissioner will exercise his powers, and I challenge any great lawyer or parliamentarian here to tell

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
us how much power this commissioner will have. We do not know. I should like to read a statement made by Mr. Powers at a time when a number of public servants were arrested because they were allegedly spying for the socialists. They were held in custody without counsel, without a hearing, for days on end by a secret order in council. What did that great Liberal, "Chubby" Powers, have to say? I want to read this to the Liberals here. It reads as follows:
As for me, brought up in an atmosphere wherein a framed photograph of Magna Carta was on almost every wall, accompanied with a warrant for the execution of Charles I, and steeped through my reading in the traditions of the martyrs of liberty and freedom, I cannot wish to turn back the pages of history 700 years and repeal Magna Carta. I cannot by my silence appear to approve even tacitly what I believe to have been a great mistake on the part of the government. If this is to be the funeral of liberalism I do not desire to be even an honorary pallbearer at the funeral, and I do not wish by not taking part in this debate to give silent approval to the procedure which has taken place.
The Magna Carta says that every man will have a fair hearing. It says that nobody will be held in custody without counsel and that if a complaint is made against a person, he is entitled to be heard. But this bill takes away these inherent rights which this nation and other nations have enjoyed for 700 years. The commissioner can call in a person against whom the complaint is made one quarter of the way through the hearing. If this is to be the just society, then God help the nation and God help justice.
I wish to emphasize therefore that every citizen, every department and every institution should have the right of appeal from the reports and recommendations of the commissioner, or the decisions flowing from the reports made by him, to protect the livelihood and the civil rights of every Canadian. Let me put the following questions to the house. Who can say here today that the language commissioner will be totally free from chicanery? Who can say that he will exercise proper administrative discretion according to natural justice? Who can say that he will always exercise the discretion given to him under the act in a fair, just and legal manner? He hears evidence, good or bad; he holds a hearing; he swears witnesses; he demands documents, and he makes a decision. All this can be done in camera without the public being present and without the person who is accused of any violation of the statute being present. It seems to me that this is in contravention of our civil rights.

The Minister of Justice can argue legal niceties as much as he likes. Men before him, men now, and men after him will use this method, but legal terminology does not determine people's rights. It is as the late prime minister Mackenzie King said:	Men and
women in Canada must know their rights so well that as they run they may read.
My real concern is for the average men and women in Canada who have no knowledge of the law, whose livelihood will be affected and whose children's education may be brought to an end because some all-powerful officer may make decisions. Their only remedy is to hope that some day parliament will rectify some inequalities. What kind of justice would parliament dispense, made up of politicians, of which I am one? One only has to examine the power of the state in expropriation laws to find out how little justice a citizen receives. When the great state moves, the citizen is squeezed and his civil rights are usurped.
The legal nicety to which I referred is the minister's statement that since the commissioner does not have the power to make judicial decisions there should be no appeal. But I say to him that if the decision that is made, whether it be administrative or judicial, has the same force and effect as a judgment made in a court or a judgment of an administrative board, then those persons who consider themselves aggrieved should have the right of appeal. Why does the minister oppose natural justice? What is he afraid of? If he ignores this plea, never again will he be looked upon as a great reformer. Why do the promoters of this legislation fear appeal? Why do they fear a public hearing? The great dictators of Europe gave no right of hearing to six million people who met death without a defence. The discretionary power was executed in an administrative fashion, but let us remember that these people were executed as effectively as a convicted murderer who dies on the scaffold, the only difference being that they had committed no crime against society with the exception of belonging to a different race and a different culture.
Now, I should like to refer to some of the cases in connection with the administrative law. I want to deal with a case in the Supreme Court of Canada. I do not think time will permit me to read the decisions of Mr. Justice Rand and Mr. Justice Abbot, who sat here in the distinguished position of minister of finance. Let us consider the facts in the Roncarelli versus Duplessis case, if administrators can be trusted. There was a
July 2, 1969

man who belonged to the Jehovah's witnesses sect. He had a liquor licence from the provincial government but because he believed in a certain kind of religion and because he had bailed out of jail some people who belonged to that sect, they took away his licence to sell liquor. Suppose there were no appeal from that decision, what would happen then? The only reason an appeal was possible in his case was that under the great Anglo-Saxon traditions, an appeal can be made to the Supreme Court of Canada in a case where a decision is contrary to natural justice and where civil rights are eroded and usurped. The ruling was that no administrator, no premier and no powerful executive could cancel a man's licence because he held a certain religious beliefs.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
That is the kind of law I want to see in this nation, not the kind of law set out by one man with all this power. This is why we need provision for appeal. Incidentally, the case to which I have just referred is cited in S.C.R. 1959 at page 123. Mr. Justice Rand said:
To deny or revoke a permit because a citizen exercises an unchallengeable right totally irrelevant to the sale of liquor in a restaurant is beyond the scope of the discretion conferred upon the commission by the Alcoholic Liquor Act.
The judge went on to point out the danger inherent in such a situation. Mr. Justice Abbott said he was shocked to find the act being administered in such a way. But I would have been even more shocked if there had not been the right of appeal to the Supreme Court against this kind of erosion of a man's civil rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: There is, of course, developing in the British courts a line of law which holds that when the scope of an act has been exceeded there is always the right to appeal to the courts on the grounds that natural justice has been denied. Viscount Kilmuir had this to say after reviewing the operation of powerful administrative boards in Great Britain:
We are firmly of the opinion that all decisions of tribunals should be subject to review by the courts on points of law. This review could be obtained either by proceedings for certiorari or by appeal.
If tribunals act in a judicial capacity and make errors in law, Viscount Kilmuir recommends that the decision may be quashed by order of certiorari in England.
The courts in Scotland do not, however, exercise this jurisdiction to quash a decision for error of
Official Languages
law on the face of the record. Moreover, an application to quash a decision on this ground is quite different from an appeal on a point of law.
In the former case the court can only quash the decision, while in the latter case the court may substitute, or in effect substitute, its own decision. Again, in the former case, the court must find the error if it can, on the face of the record. It cannot look at anything else. In the latter case the court can in addition look at the notes of the evidence given before the tribunal if the point of law is whether there was evidence on which the tribunal could in law have arrived at its decision.
But here, as the Minister of Justice so ably stated, where an act is interpreted as being an administrative act, not a judicial act, there is no right to quash the decision of a board, as was done in the case to which I have just referred involving the cancellation of an individual's liquor licence.
These special remedies which exist in the law are good. But they depend upon astute and able lawyers if they are to be effective. Why can the procedure not be simplified so that whenever an individual or an agency of the government feels aggrieved there is the right of review by a judge. If the judge says he believes the commissioner acted in accordance with the principles of law and natural justice, there will be no problem. But if the commissioner goes beyond the scope allotted, to him, a remedy will be possible. It is only by granting this right of appeal that the rights of Canadians can be protected. This is why Viscount Kilmuir, after holding hearings throughout Great Britain, said the only thing to do was to give the right of appeal to individuals, to agencies, to Crown corporations, or anyone else affected.
I agree with this recommendation. All lawyers-and the Minister of Justice is no exception-fear today that an all-powerful state is infringing on the rights of individuals. The only way to safeguard the rights we now enjoy is by writing into our laws provision for appeal to an independent judiciary. Otherwise we may find, in this case, that the livelihood of many an individual in the public service is in jeopardy. No one can say that the points I have raised in this regard are not worthy of serious consideration. The other day the Secretary of State said I had made an emotional speech. Well, I have spent days and nights reviewing this situation and reading what has been said about it. Whenever I read decisions and recommendations by the courts I find they all reach the same conclusion. The courts are now holding that the rules or principles of natural justice are in themselves a sufficiently independent criterion of review as

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
to provoke their intervention without there being any question of excess of jurisdiction.
In the case of Ridge v. Baldwin in 1964, the House of Lords held that the decision of the Watch Committee of the Town of Brighton to dismiss the chief of police and so deprive him of the right to a pension was null ab initio because he was not given an opportunity to be heard. In this case, the highest judicial authority in England formally declared that the violation of the rule of natural justice is a separate and independent criterion which the courts may use as the basis for review of the legality of administrative acts or decisions of a judicial or quasi judicial character.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) says, if I understand him correctly, that we in this country have labour boards from whose decisions there is no provision for appeal. Mr. Speaker, there are statutes so numerous that it would take me all night to enumerate them, which do give the right to appeal. Let us consider the famous case of Calgary Power v. Copithorne in 1959. Calgary Power had expropriated a certain amount of land, and there was no right of appeal provided. The courts held that because the terms of the statute had been exceeded the decision could nevertheless, be appealed. But what ordinary citizen can afford the luxury of justice in such cases? Let me show hon. members how much justice can cost. Eighteen men stand charged in Calgary for bookmaking. The preliminary hearing lasted ten days-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much.
If each of the accused is represented by a lawyer, what does it cost to get to trial? The evidence in the preliminary hearing costs $2,000, so, those court reporters want $2,000 from each of the 18 accused. So, it would cost at least $36,000 to get into a court of justice in this country. The point I am making is this: where one has to rely on special, prerogative rights and remedies, the situation becomes both expensive and complex, requiring highly skilled and efficient lawyers. I say to the Minister of Justice and to the Secretary of State that what we need is a simple right to

appeal, so that when a report or decision is made which adversely affects any individual, whether French speaking or English speaking, such a person, if he feels aggrieved, may have his case reviewed by a judge. If he has been wrongfully dismissed, he could be reinstated by that same judge. Then, whether he is a scientist, or an economist, or a medical specialist, Canada will not be denied the benefit of his skills, and we can move toward the affluent society to which we all look forward on the basis of the resources available to us. We can learn to compete in world markets with our wheat, our oil, and our industrial products.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I end with these words. I hope the Minister of Justice is not going to say that this is only an administrative decision. I do not care whether the decision is made by a board, a court or an individual; if that decision carries the weight of a judgment that affects the human rights of Canadians, particularly the right of a Canadian to make a living, then the person concerned should be heard. The door should be open to him. No decision should be made in camera. He must have the right to counsel, and he must have the right to the best counsel available.
If this government denies these privileges to Canadian citizens, it is doing them the gravest injustice. The principle of the bill, I endorse. The principle itself is good. Why destroy this great principle by denying Canadian citizens the right to be heard in the way I have suggested? I warn Canadians, and particularly French Canadians, that without this right of appeal it is they who stand to lose.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I always enjoy listening to the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) but I must say that his speech this afternoon was a rerun in colour of a speech he made on an earlier occasion in this house with regard to an earlier amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) which related to clauses 28, 29 and 30 of this bill. My remarks will be brief because I should like to refer Your Honour and other hon. members to the reply that I made on a rather enthusiastic evening to the hon. member for Calgary North, to be found on page 10363 of Hansard for June 18, and which dealt in substance with the powers of the official languages commissioner, the
July 2, 1969

nature of his duties and the sanctions he has at his command.
In concluding his speech the hon. member said that he does not want any Canadian citizen to have his civil rights adversely affected by any decision carrying the weight of a judgment and affecting those civil rights. Nor do I. I will not take second place to the hon. member-indeed, he would not expect me to-in his support of civil rights in this country. It is because no decision of the official languages commissioner does have the force or weight of a judgment that every argument adduced by the hon. member this afternoon is absolutely irrelevant-and I say that with the greatest respect-to the scope of the bill and the powers of the commissioner.
Let me summarize as briefly as I can what it is the official languages commissioner does. First of all, he is not a court. He performs an investigatory or fact finding function. He in no way can attach a sanction or penalty to any individual, whether within or without the public service of Canada. His job is to ensure that the departments and agencies of the government are meeting the spirit and letter of the law, the official languages bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister would not dare permit a question at this point.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member will appreciate that I should like to keep my speech coherent, and this does become difficult when he puts a question.


Mr. Horner:: Deal with line 41 of clause 28.


John Napier Turner: The official languages commissioner has as his function, and his sole function, to ensure that departments and agencies of the government fulfil the spirit and letter of the law. His sanction against those departments is limited to a report that is made to the deputy head of the department; to a report that is made to the minister of the department; and if no action is taken on a particular investigation, to a report that is made to parliament itself. Under clause 33 and clause 34 of the bill he has a duty to report on an annual basis to parliament.
What the hon. member is suggesting to the house is that this administrative function of comparing the operation of a department or agency of the government with the requirements of the bill ought to be reviewed by a court of law. This is an institutional situation affecting policy and administration. Surely, we do not want to have the administration of
Official Languages
government at an institutional level referred to the courts or reviewed by the courts. What is the position vis-a-vis individuals? I said on an earlier occasion that this commissioner has no power to fine, no sanction or penalty to impose. He decides no rights either for or against any member of the public service or agency of government.


Melvin James McQuaid: He recommends.


John Napier Turner: He makes a report to parliament. So far as any recommendation he may make is concerned, any public servant, any member of a department or agency of the government, has the right to be heard and, if necessary, to be represented by counsel; and this is adequately set forth in clause 28.
With regard to the rights of an employee of the government or a public servant being indirectly affected by a report, which after all is directed to the department concerned, through the department to the deputy head, and thence to the minister of that department, that employee has his rights protected under his collective agreement with the public service and as set forth under statute in the Public Service Employment Act. Those rights are in no way forfeited or restricted, and they are protected by the present law and by collective agreements.
That is my reply, in brief, to the hon. member. May I refer the hon. member for Calgary North to the speech he heard two weeks ago. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the government, the complete answer to his contention that a judicial review or an appeal is necessary here is that the hon. member has misread the functions of the commissioner. The commissioner in no way exercises a quasi-judicial function or a judicial function. Therefore there is no scope in the bill for a judicial review in the courts. That is quite clear.
I am quite familiar with the Roncarelli case to which he referred dealing with the role and function of the police in regard to individual rights, penalties and crimes.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: And loss of licence.


John Napier Turner: No loss of licence is created by this bill. There is no penalty attaching to an individual member of a department; nowhere in the bill is there that provision.
May I summarize the argument once again? The hon. member has misread the scope of the commissioner's powers. With the greatest
10774

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
respect he has misread the duties of the commissioner as set out in the bill. They relate to government departments. So far as individual rights are concerned, these are preserved under collective agreements and under the Public Service Employment Act, and they are in no way jeopardized by the provisions of this bill. The hon. member has altogether misread the commissioner's powers.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would the minister permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Calgary North rising to pose a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister said he was familiar with the case law, particularly the Copithorne case. In that case, a cabinet minister acting on behalf of the Alberta cabinet made a decision in regard to a man by the name of Copithorne which affected that man's rights. As a result, the decision was appealed on the ground that the executive had gone beyond its powers.
I should like to ask the minister this. Assume that a deputy minister loses his job or is demoted; or perhaps he is discriminated against. Surely, such a person has the right to appeal and to say that the commissioner, or the executive, or the minister concerned, has done something that is against the law of natural justice.


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


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not
know whether the minister wants to answer the question first, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He cannot answer it.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


John Napier Turner: The question turned into a speech.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, we in this party made it very clear that we do not think this is a perfect bill, or that we approve of all its principles. We want it to work. We have also made amendments. We felt that the failure to give a person the right to a public hearing in the case of an adverse report was a serious defect of the bill. We pointed this out to the minister, but he did not agree with us.
I must say that, although I listened to the predictably eloquent speech of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams), I was not convinced by it. In my judgment, the
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) .3
amendment is unnecessary. If it did anything, it would militate against a satisfactory working of the act. The reason the amendment is unnecessary was indicated by the hon. member for Calgary North. As a lawyer, he is naturally familiar with this. He pointed out that if the commissioner exceeds the authority given to him by the statute, if he declines to exercise the jurisdiction given to him, if he disregards the rules of natural justice or elementary fairness, he can be restrained by the courts by motions, writs or other processes that the court has.
The granting of the right of appeal is a very different thing indeed. The right of appeal means that even while the commissioner is still acting under the authority given to him, still acting in perfect fairness, the appeal can be dragged out for years. This would tie up the effective working of the commissioner and the act. One of the main reasons the appeal is inappropriate is the reason given by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) a while ago. There is no such thing as an inherent right of appeal to the courts from every administrative tribunal, as was suggested by the hon. member for Calgary North. Quite the contrary is the case.
This is a matter that has been the subject of controversy for decades. In many cases the rights of appeal are being limited to the major items covered by such things as a prerogative writs, yet the amendment before us grants a right of appeal without any finding of fact, question of law or matter of the merits. This right would take something away from the commissioner appointed under this act and put the effective administration of this act in the hands of the courts. As much as I respect the courts, I want to make it clear I think they are entirely unsuitable tribunals for this particular purpose. When the Norris-LaGuardia bill, which confirmed or certified the rights of collective bargaining by unions, was passed in the United States, the process blew up because there were rights of appeal given. The appeals in relation to that matter were before the court for four years, and at the end of the four years the union was no longer in existence. There are many such cases. I think this is pre-eminently a case where the decisions of administrative tribunals should not be subject to appeal through the courts of the land.
As I have stated, the courts have their function. If there is a disregard of jurisdiction, unfairness, a breach of fundamental rights, they can be called into question in the courts which will consider every finding of
July 2, 1969

fact by the commissioner and give an expression of opinion on the merits. The right to appeal to the courts would invite chaos and, I suggest, the destruction of the effective purpose of the act. I do not have the slightest hesitation in saying that this administrative tribunal is not the sort that lends itself to a general right of appeal. Like the minister I do not want to take second place to anyone who might be concerned with individual human rights and rights of appeal. I say the right of appeal is not a right that has to be preserved or is required to be preserved in this particular case.
I find it odd, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member himself was not convinced of his case at the proceedings of the special committee on the official languages bill. 1 have the official transcript, No. 4, of the minutes of proceedings and the evidence taken on June 10, 1969. It appears, as reported on page 305, that the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. Mc-Quaid) moved an amendment in similar form which read:
(2) Any person who considers himself aggrieved by an investigation, a report, or a recommendation of the Commissioner may appeal in respect thereof to a judge of a superior court of record within sixty days of the day he is informed of the report or recommendation.
That amendment, in substance, is the same as we have had presented to us here today. In the course of the discussion, my colleague the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), made a number of objections to the amendment which I would like to read into the record because they represent my views on this subject, and I endorse them then. I quote from page 307:
Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate the reasons which moved Mr. McQuaid to think in the terms of this amendment; however, I cannot support it for the following reasons: first for the reasons given by Mr. Stanbury and Mr. Cantin that-and it seems to me that there should not be anything in the law which suggests that the Commissioner has any authority other than that of an administrative officer making an inquiry to report to the authorities, with the competence to make a decision

anything in here that suggests that he does anything else, something from which you can appeal, is to suggest, I think, something that is not within the confines of the law.
Secondly, it seems to me that if this law is to work, that the responsibility is on the Minister and all the people under him in a department. It is on the management of the public corporations and the agencies; they have to be held responsible by the Members of Parliament in the end result.
Thirdly, I do not think that the court is the forum for this kind of thing. I am a lawyer and I show the courts the respect they deserve, in particular instances; however, I do not think that a court is a place for this kind of thing.
Official Languages


James Hugh Faulkner: Do you have a supplementary question or a point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order. We might save some time, and Mr. McQuaid and I were discussing this. I am inclined to agree with Mr. Lewis; I am not trying to interrupt; we can save time. If you would hear Mr. McQuaid, now, you would save a lot of speeches, because he is prepared-I think the point is well taken. You are really into an investigation. You cannot appeal an investigation in the sense, because it then becomes an administrative act of someone to take some action on something.


James Hugh Faulkner: Thank you very much, Mr. Woolliams. Mr. Lewis is agreed. Mr. Matte, could we go now to Mr. McQuaid? Mr. Matte may want to say something afterwards on the subject,-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my distinguished friend does not want to misrepresent the facts. When I was talking about a decision, I said I did not believe there should be a right of appeal from an investigation; with that I agree. If the hon. member reads my amendment, he will see there was no amendment of that kind or calibre moved in the committee.
I am talking about a recommendation which goes to a deputy minister and upon which he makes a decision. From the decision or recommendation of the deputy minister, or any agency or person, which flows from the report of the commissioner, there should be a right of appeal. I agree that you cannot appeal an investigation by the police. They may say there is nothing here or there may be something here. I am talking about an appeal. I want that clarified because I saw my friend from York East (Mr. Otto) smiling. He thinks the member for Calgary North has put himself into an untenable position.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Is that a point of order?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, it is a point of order. The hon. member would not want to misquote me in any way. I took the same position in the committee as I take now, and have always taken, with reference to an appeal from a decision.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has made a somewhat vehement point of order. So far as I am concerned it is no point of order, but apart from that I can see no substantial difference between the amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) in the committee and the present amendment. It dealt with the right of appeal, and I had not quite reached the punchline in this. I quote:


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Chairman, I think I am convinced that this is not a necessary amendment-

July 2. 1969
Official Languages
Apparently convinced by the hon. member for Calgary North.
-I am prepared to withdraw it. I can see now, although I must confess I did not see before, that the reason we are sitting here is to be enlightened.
And so the amendment was withdrawn. I cannot speak with the emphasis and the volume of the hon. member for Calgary North, but I can say that there is not the slightest doubt in the world that the amendment he advised his colleague, the hon. member for Cardigan, to withdraw was in substance the amendment that is now before the house. At that time they did not see any merit in it, and I suggest there is no merit in it now. I suggest it should be defeated.
Mr. Woolliamsj I should like to rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I say this, as the minister and others have said, that this is the highest court in the land and it is entitled to an interpretation. I am not going to be unkind, even though the hon. member referred to my volume. I might be unkind and refer to his tone, but I point out that the amendment I moved today is an amendment in relation to decisions. It is different from the previous one. It was drawn up by a draftsman and myself. It had nothing to do with the group of people who sat on the special committee. I asked my party could they accept it, and a party decision was made accepting it. I am not going to be misquoted and misrepresented. If the hon. member wants to get nasty, in return I would ask him to put his voice on a tape and if it hasn't got a bit of a squeak in it, then there isn't a squeak in this house.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a word or two about this amendment and I shall not be loud or long. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) is doing an honourable job in piloting this piece of legislation through the house, a piece of legislation in which he does not really believe. I commend him for the job he is doing, and I point out that his heart and soul are not in it. That is clearly evident from the reasoning and the logic that he has been using. The minister would be the first to admit that the bill gives the commissioner the right to report. Does not this bill give this commissioner the right to report to the government, Mr. Minister?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would invite the hon. member to address his remarks through the Chair.
.[Mr. Brewin.l


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I got a little carried away, and I wanted a clear cut answer to the question I was posing. I think the Minister of Justice would agree that the commissioner does have the right to report to a member of the cabinet, but we have not been told to which minister. I am sure also the Minister of Justice will agree that the commissioner reports from an inquiry held in private. In other words, his opinion is based on a private inquiry held about somebody or some department. It is hard to say whether the opinion he reaches is based on valid or invalid premises, since the inquiry itself has been held in private. If it is based on invalid or false premises it should be immediately disregarded, but how can the public judge if the inquiry is in private.
Time and time again, the minister has said that no action will be taken on the commissioner's reports which will be laid before the public, and that the onus will be on the government and the public to determine whether or not action is really necessary. But how will the public be in a position to know whether action is necessary when the reports are based on private inquiries? It has often been said that justice must not only be done but it must appear to be done. How can it appear to be done in these cases when inquiries are held in private? A few minutes ago the minister spoke about the individual's rights which are written into the bill, and said that these rights were included in clause 28. They are not. The only rights written into clause 28 are the rights of the commissioner. This clause states that if the commissioner, at any time during the course of an investigation, deems that there may be sufficient grounds for making a report that may adversely affect an individual he shall give that individual an opportunity to answer any adverse allegation or criticism.
By contrast the amendment proposes the right of appeal. Nobody can convince me that we should not establish the right of appeal, particularly when opinions are formed on the basis of a private investigation that may condemn an individual. The commissioner has the right to report, recommend and condemn. Lest the Minister of Justice take exception to that let him read line 41 in clause 28. I start reading at line 40 as follows:
-a full and ample opportunity to answer any adverse allegation or criticism.
July 2, 1969

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
That is clear enough. The commissioner may make a report that may be adverse to or may offer adverse criticism of an individual or a department. Whether the minister likes it or not, the fact of the matter is that the minister's opinions will be formulated in private and the accused person or persons will have no right of appeal because that right is not written into this bill any place. I challenge the minister to stand in his place and say in what line of what clause the right to be heard is written into this bill. There is a right to be heard in clause 28 if the commissioner really wants to hear the person, but that is the only clause which deals with such a complaint. The rights of an accused person or a department are not written into this bill in any place. The evidence is gathered in private. The individual is condemned in private and the public and the government will judge him. He has no right to recourse whatsoever under this bill as it now stands. To me it would seem that the opinions may be formulated on a pretty invalid and false premise. I suggest the public should be present to witness and judge whether or not the premise on which the opinions were formulated was sound, and in fact represented what actually happened in respect of the administration of the department or the carrying out of the person's responsibility.
I believe this is a very important amendment. I shall not become involved in the judicial question of whether or not an appeal should be allowed from an administrative tribunal, but I believe that right should be written into the bill somewhere. Whether the appeal is to the supreme court, to the minister, to the cabinet or to parliament itself, there should be the right of appeal. The evidence should be gathered in public and the person should have the right to be heard, period, and not "if". A few minutes ago, the minister said about three times that the individual has this right. Nowhere in this bill is he given this right. The commissioner may-and I emphasize the point because I believe it is extremely important-if he feels someone is adversely affected grant a public hearing. This is not good enough. Knowing the Minister of Justice, I realize he cannot stand up in his place and wholeheartedly support the position of his government on this bill because his heart and soul is not in this administration. He is just doing yeoman service for an all-powerful commissioner and
Official Languages
giving no rights whatsoever to the individual. I wholeheartedly support the amendment.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I need no more than the three or four minutes left before six o'clock. I am sorry the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wool-liams) has had to leave. I rise mainly to deal with his alleged point of order and to say also-I am sorry to say this in his absence- that the good natured jocular remark of my friend the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) did not justify the boorish retort of the hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: -for Calgary North. The hon. member for Calgary North can speak in volume or by squeaks or in any other way he likes, but the fact is that the amendment which the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. McQuaid) withdrew on the advice of the hon. member for Calgary North before the special committee is precisely the same amendment which is now before this chamber. When he says he is being misrepresented, it is he who is misrepresenting the situation. No one is misrepresenting him.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Cardigan before the special committee, which my friend the hon. member for Greenwood read, stated that any person who considered himself aggrieved by an investigation, a report or recommendation of the commissioner may appeal to a court. The amendment we are now discussing says that where an individual, department or institution is aggrieved by a report or recommendation of the commissioner or by a decision made by him or other person or authority acting upon his report, and so on, they may appeal. It is true that the hon. member for Calgary North has now added the word "decision" and taken out the word "investigation" which was in the amendment with which we dealt before the special committee, but in his amendment he has included an appeal from the report and recommendation of the commissioner as did the hon. member for Cardigan in his amendment.
That is the guts of the thing. The appeal from the action of the minister or department which is suggested in the amendment now before us is irrelevant to this bill. That appeal is relevant to the normal channels of grievance procedure. A person who is aggrieved can still go to court. The law cases contain many examples of people going to court when they think they are aggrieved. I

July 2, 1969
Official Languages
say, despite the volume, or whatever, oi the hon. member for Calgary North, the fact is that in substance the same amendment came before the special committee. The hon. member for Calgary North agreed with me that it was a bad amendment. The hon. member for Cardigan agreed with both of us that it was a bad amendment and withdrew it. To have it back here is just sheer silliness, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 11 of Standing Order 75, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
It being six o'clock this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 3, 1969 can be considered by the Chair in those