1969-11-06

Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whil-by):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Late in the last session of Parliament the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs asserted that if the automobile companies introduced a substantial increase in the price of their 1970 models he would undertake an investigation of their pricing policies. Yesterday in the House, when I asked what had been done by the minister since the automobile manufacturers announced higher prices for their new 1970 models, he reneged on this commitment to the people of Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you agree with me I should like to move that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I notice that the President of the Privy Council wishes to rise in connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. As he knows, by virtue of the Standing Order the hon. member is required to give notice, which he has done, to give the Chair an opportunity to study the matter extensively, which I have done during the lunch hour. I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to do so.
The hon. member claims that the alleged failure of a Minister of the Crown to take certain steps which he had indicated would be taken in certain circumstances is in itself a violation of Parliamentary privilege. Let me refer the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and other hon. members, as I have done in the past, to Citation 113 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, which reads as follows:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament.
Do the circumstances outlined by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby give rise to a valid question of privilege? I do not think so. The circumstances alleged by the hon. member may give rise to a grievance, and grievances should normally be raised and discussed by hon. members on one of the many occasions available under our supply proceedings.
What I am suggesting to the hon. member is that although he may have a complaint and may feel that the minister has not fulfilled a promise or undertaking given to the House during the course of an answer to a question, this in itself does not, in my respectful submission, constitute a question of privilege. It is the type of grievance which should normally be taken up under other circumstances, particularly when the House is debating matters under the terms of our supply proceedings.
Neither the special privileges of the hon. member as a member of the House nor the collective privileges of the House are, to my way of thinking, at issue in this instance. I must rule, therefore, that I cannot at this time put to the House the motion proposed by the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that this morning the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Basford) and myself have had the privilege of meeting with provincial ministers in the Ministerial Committee on Official Languages of the Constitutional Conference. During that meeting I announced to the provinces the federal government's proposals for financial co-operation in respect of bilingualism programs based on the principles set forth in Book II of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism.
November 6, 1969

Financing of Bilingualism Programs [English']
I might add that the position we have advanced is in line with the process undertaken earlier in respect of Book I of the royal commission report, particularly the Official Languages Act which was adopted by Parliament last summer. The proposals we have advanced involve acceptance by the federal government of the principles underlying those recommendations in Book II which were addressed by the Royal Commission specifically to the federal government. They look forward to a program which would provide for federal co-operation with the provinces in greatly expanded activities in the field of minority language education and second language learning.
I am sure hon. members realize that the B and B recommendations concerning other minority groups have not yet been received.

We fully recognize that much of the substance of the recommendations of Book II of the Royal Commission Report falls more in the provincial field of responsibility than that of the federal government. At the same time, we consider that there is a national dimension to the problem. We believe that this latter aspect involves the development and encouragement of programs which will advance and encourage the use of the two official languages across the country.
Volume II of the Royal Commission Report contains 12 recommendations respecting aid to minority language schools, teacher-training, including the establishment of new teacher-training institutions; university education, including grants to minority-language students to study outside their own province, grants to minority-language universities, and a one-year transfer program for students specializing in the second official language; and finally the establishment of a Language Research Council. Other details of these programs are to be found in the statement I have made this morning.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)

Essentially, these programs would involve two related priorities; first, measures undertaken in co-operation with the provinces to ensure that the official language minorities will enjoy equal rights with the majority so far as access to education in their own language is concerned; second, the encouragement of second-language learning, to meet a desire expressed by an increasing number of

Canadians who wish to be competent in both of Canada's official languages.
As a government, we accept both these priorities and we are prepared to provide for federal financial participation in support of them. Action in this field of course calls for provincial participation as well, because proposals relating to programs and institutions in the field of education are in the provincial domain. Accordingly, in order to achieve any substantial progress in this field, provincial initiative will be required as well as a federal willingness to participate.

The question of financing is of course of the first importance. Given the financial restraints which are operative today, no government can think in terms of providing unlimited resources or establishing open-ended programs even in fields of the highest priority. We have therefore felt it necessary to inform the provinces that it will be necessary to place at least rough limits on the amounts which the federal government can contribute to this program.
Our proposals will require detailed discussion with the provincial authorities, who have of course not yet had an opportunity to study or comment on them. My purpose in speaking today is to ensure that the House is informed without delay of the government's position on this important matter. I would hope, so far as our provincial colleagues are concerned, that what we have begun this morning is a useful series of consultations which will eventually result in arrangements satisfactory to all concerned.

With the consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the proposals that were put to the provinces this morning which, if the House agrees, might be appended to and printed in today's Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of proposals, see appendix.]


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, while we welcome the statement by the minister in his desire to inform Parliament, we have certain reservations and cautions about what appears to be a substantial initiative by the federal government in the field of education. Federal interference in the field of education has, in the past, been the
November 6, 1969

source of serious problems in Canada's history.
In his statement the minister recognizes that the recommendations of Book II of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism fall more in the provincial field of responsibility. But he adds that there is a federal dimension to the problem. He went on to say that the federal dimension involves the development and encouragement of programs which will advance and encourage the use of the two official languages across the country. We do not disagree with this concept. But one is too easily reminded of the development and encouragement of medicare which forced many of the provinces to swallow an unacceptable plan. Having foisted this principle on the provinces, the government is now considering removing itself from this field.
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) also mentioned the restraints resulting from austerity. The present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), and ex-minister of finance, also talked of austerity as the Liberal government forced medicare on the provinces. While the federal government is limiting its contributions because of austerity, it should not push increased expenditures on the provinces. Having in mind the position in the past, I would hope that the programs proposed for federal assistance to the provinces will allow for some form of assistance not only for the two official languages but also for the other ethnic languages which have become a part of Canada's culture.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in welcoming the statement by the minister we ask the government to exercise caution in its meetings with the provinces. Having in mind past experiences of the provinces with this government, it is probably superfluous to ask the provinces to exercise caution in dealing with the federal government.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin my brief comments on this issue by saying immediately that so far as I am concerned I cannot see anything in the minister's statement or in the proposals which he made to the provincial ministers that suggests any intention to interfere with the provincial jurisdiction in education. I do not think one should assume this from the proposals which were made.
It has been evident from the start that if bilingualism in Canada is to be promoted and to become a reality, the major responsibility
Financing of Bilingualism Programs for it lies, in fact, with the federal government. The additional cost of enabling Canadians to learn the second official language and of increasing the teaching of the other official language in our schools should be borne by Canada as a whole through its federal treasury rather than by the provincial governments and the provincial treasuries. This is what the B and B commission indicated, and this is what we knew from the start. We therefore welcome the federal government's acceptance of that responsibility.
I have only three comments to make on the proposals that have been put before us. The first is the hope that the federal government will be as concerned with promoting the learning of other languages in Canada when the volume on other languages is produced by the B and B Commission as they have been with the promotion of the two official languages.
My second comment is that this is a field from which the federal government should never withdraw. I say this because we have had indications from the federal government of its intention to withdraw from other costsharing programs, an intention which I and my colleagues believe is contrary to the interests of Canada in those fields. But when the federal government seeks the co-operation of the provinces in introducing costly programs to promote bilingualism in Canada, the people of Canada are entitled to a firm assurance that it will not then load the provinces with the cost of that task at some future time. I do not wish to overemphasize this because although the minister did not say that in the future the government intends to withdraw from this field it is a fact that the government did not at first say it would withdraw from other cost-sharing programs, the cost of which is now being loaded entirely on the provinces. Therefore I think it is the duty of Members of Parliament to warn that any suggestion from the government of placing the burden of the cost of promoting bilingualism in Canada on the provincial treasuries would be a betrayal of the cause of bilingualism and of the obligation of this government to the people of Canada.
The third point I want to make is to express my astonishment at hearing the government pull a figure out of the air. I appreciate that any government has to allocate priorities and decide how much it can spend on A, B or C, but I am somewhat repelled by the notion that some bureaucratic group should decide that $50 million is to be spent on this project. I do not know why and how it
November 6, 1969

Financing of Bilingualism Programs decided on this amount; the minister has not told us. It seems to me it would have been much more sensible and, in my respectful submission, would have shown a great deal more good faith on the part of the federal government if it had continued discussions with the provincial governments, produced some kind of plan-or have the provinces produce plans for the promotion of bilingualism-made some kind of estimate of the cost and then related the cost to the total obligations of the federal treasury. Under such a procedure the figure might then be $35 million or $65 million or something else. But I am appalled at what I consider to be this totally bureaucratic approach of saying, without knowing what the plans are going to be, without having discussed exactly what they will be, without knowing what the cost will be: "You make plans but we place a limit of $50 million on those plans no matter what they may be." It seems to me this is not the proper approach to this kind of problem.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
I conclude by reminding the House if I have to remind it, of my dedication to the bilingual character of this country. Therefore I cannot but greet with pleasure the federal government's involvement and its assumption of its responsibilities. I just hope that the fears I have expressed will in the future prove unjustified.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, we consider it excellent policy to provide the provinces with funds for joint financing of education of minority groups of one of the official languages so that they may achieve equality with the majority group, provided the rights and powers of provinces in the field of education are respected.
I should like to remind the minister that education comes under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces, under section 93 of the British North America Act, and urge him to keep this in mind during his discussions with the provincial representatives. We trust, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government will proceed cautioustly and respect this principle, which is embodied in the Constitution.
It is obvious that on the pretense of curing a national malaise, our action should not become for the provinces another source of frustration and dissatisfaction against federalism, whatever our intentions are, if we do not comply with the terms of confederation.

Mr. Speaker, we believe that federalism must be flexible so as to respect the identify of the individual while guaranteeing its own unity and Canadian characteristic in a bicultural and bilingual atmosphere. We rejoice at the minister's statement and action, yet they leave us confused about respecting the terms of confederation.
It is utopian to imagine that all Canadians can become bilingual. However, we sincerely believe that it should be possible for anyone who wants to do so.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that it is up to the federal government to help the provinces finance the program for bilingualism, show every respect for the identify and characteristics of each province, and provide for all equal opportunities to see their rights respected.
It proved more expensive for the province of Quebec to ensure the respect of bilingualism than for any other province.
Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to make such a legislation retroactive, I firmly believe that the federal government would not be in a position to repay the astronomical sums of money which the province of Quebec spent to maintain federalism, while in other provinces unilingualism was promoted. If every province will extend to its minority the same respect which the province of Quebec has shown to its minority, we of the Ralliement creditiste believe that national unity is possible.
That is why we are pleased with the initiative of the federal government, provided naturally that it will respect the identity and the jurisdiction of each of the provinces.



PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-145, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The purpose of this bill is to provide penalties which would be binding upon senior government employees for failure to implement arbitration awards within the period of 90 days specified by section 74 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
November 6, 1969


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
First reading of Senate Public Bills-Bill S-3, an Act to provide for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Board and for the repeal of the Canadian Coal Equality Act, the Coal Production Assistance Act and the Dominion Coal Board Act-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources,
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. At this stage I must, with great respect, challenge the right of this House, pursuant to Standing Order No. 70, to receive this bill. I should like Your Honour's leave to put the circumstances before the House very briefly, without in any sense opposing the principle of the bill or what is involved in it.
In all seriousness I suggest to Your Honour that an attempt to place the bill before the House in this way constitutes a violation of the British North America Act, and in addition violates two of our most important standing Orders, Nos. 62 and 63. I should like to read to you the clause in the bill which I submit makes it repugnant as far as this House is concerned:
3(2). The provisions made by any Appropriation Act to defray the expenses of the board shall be applied to such classifications of the public service within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as the Governor in Council may determine.
It is my submission that this is in fact an appropriation within the meaning of our rules and within the meaning of the British North America Act as well as within our traditions and practices. I need hardly remind Your Honour that the British North America Act, particularly clauses 53 and 54, states:
53.	Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons.
54.	It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor Genera] in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
Standing Order 62 provides:
1. This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
581
Dominion Coal Board Dissolution Act
Then, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the changes in Standing Orders which were made last year there is provision that:
2. The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.
I cannot answer for what message may or may not have been sent by His Excellency, but certainly none has been printed in Votes and Proceedings. I would point out to Your Honour that there has been a breach of what from the time of antiquity has been one of the rights and privileges of this House, to vote and appropriate money for a specific purpose which this House may see fit to direct to that end. Beyond any question, clauses 2 and 3 of Bill S-3 deal with an appropriation of moneys for a specific purpose not covered by a Commons appropriation bill of this session.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The purpose of this bill has been initiated in the other place. Large sums of money may or may not be involved; all I can say is that an examination of the Appropriation Acts will reveal that for the current fiscal year the sum of $180,000 has been set apart for the purpose of meeting the expenses of administration of the Dominion Coal Board which is being dissolved by Bill S-3. In addition, there appears in an appropriation bill of 1964 a certain sum which was added to in 1966. The total provision is for a sum of $22 million to be expended over a five-year period on matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Coai Board.
That, simply, is my reason for objecting to this bill. It constitutes an appropriation of funds for a purpose which this House has not necessarily approved and which has not been recommended in a message from His Excellency. In other words, the spending of the unexpended funds referred to in the bill ought not to be applied to the classification of the Public Service as the Governor in Council may determine by clause 3(2).
It may well be that if this bill were allowed to proceed and subjected to the normal proceedings of this House, it would be competent for the government at any time to initiate in the other place a bill to set aside certain payments and programs covered by measures or statutes properly recommended by His
November 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry Excellency and divert the money for other purposes. I am of course referring to purposes for which money has been appropriated. True, the matter would have to come back to this House for discussion, but I submit most sincerely that if that were done there would be a flouting of the provisions of the Standing Orders of this House and of the constitution.
I conclude by saying that in the past 18 months the power of the government has expanded far too much and the power of the Commons has been eroded in a studied fashion. I submit, therefore, that we cannot permit this bill to go through unchallenged. That is why I have raised this issue. Your Honour may wish to take the matter under advisement and bring down a decision on whether the bill ought to be allowed to proceed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has raised very important issues respecting the procedural and constitutional privileges of this House. Since hon. members have not had prior notice of the point raised by the hon. member in connection with the first reading in the House of the Senate bill referred to, I should like to suggest to hon. members that the matter be left in abeyance at the present time to allow those hon. members who wish to study the matter the opportunity of considering it from its different aspects. In due course, perhaps at the beginning of next week, argument might be heard from hon. members on both sides of the House about the point raised by the hon. member for Peace River. Also, the Chair would be given additional time thereafter to consider the arguments in support of and against the position advanced by the hon. member for Peace River. For the time being, the matter will be allowed to rest, with the consent of the House, and hon. members who take a special interest in these very complex questions will have an opportunity to give the situation serious thought over the weekend.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister. In light of the historic commitment of the federal government to provide a rail link from coast to coast in Canada, and the ever 
increasing congestion and ever higher accident rates on our highways, what steps is the government taking to assure Canadians that adequate rail transportation will continue to be available for passengers despite the attempts of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways to avoid their responsibilities?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that he is raising a matter of very wide scope. He is inviting the Prime Minister to make a statement of a general nature. In all fairness, I suggest that this statement ought to be made on motions. I wonder whether the hon. member might not put his question in a different way.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, will you permit me to rephrase my question in the manner you have suggested? Will the Prime Minister make a statement on motions and set out the government's position with regard to the historic commitment to provide train service across Canada from coast to coast?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss with the Minister of Transport the possibility of such a statement being made in due course. The matter is now before the Canadian Transport Commission. We think that we should let the companies have a chance to be heard before the commission and see what action the commission will take.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: But who is
the Commission?


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister assure the house that serious studies will being made on the management of railways who ask for grants, -for they are grants-before any elimination of service is accepted?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In my view, it is necessary that serious studies be made, if those companies want to put their proposals before the Canadian Transport Commission.
As I already said, we have to wait for the Commission's reaction and if the government feels their decision is wrong, we shall decide whether we should act under the law.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: A supplementary question, Mr. November 6, 1969
Speaker. Since, as the Prime Minister mentioned, this matter is now before the Canadian Transport Commission and since the Canadian Pacific Railway specifically agreed prior to construction getting under way to make full provision for passenger and other transportation, will not the Prime Minister, in light of this historical background, consider having the government of Canada represented by counsel before the Canadian Transport Commission so that the government can oppose any action by the CPR-I am dealing at the moment only with the CPR-which is contrary to the provisions upon which the CPR received so much consideration prior to construction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the statute provides certain ways in which the federal government can act. We will wait to see if it is necessary to act in one way or another, and we are prepared to take our responsibilities seriously.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The right hon. member for Prince Albert referred to the undertaking by the CPR in 1881 under which it promised to operate the railway forever for the benefit of the people of Canada. Considering the provisions of the National Transportation Act, which make it possible for the CPR to ask for subsidies of up to 80 per cent if it can prove losses in certain particulars, will the Prime Minister not discuss with the Minister of Transport the urgent need to place before the Canadian Transport Commission Canada's interests as opposed to the interests of Canadian Pacific?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Transport Commission was set up precisely to represent the public interest. The representations of the hon. member and of hon. members of other parties are well known. I think everyone in this country realizes that that railway company was given certain advantages in the west, including large grants of lands, in return for certain services. I know this as well as the right hon. member for Prince Albert, as does everyone else. We established the Canadian Transport Commission by statute; I do not think the House should panic because the railway companies are following the procedures that we set up under that law and which they are required to follow.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness whether, in view of the behaviour of 29362-38J
Inquiries of the Ministry the Canadian Pacific Railway over the last number of years and particularly in view of this present attempt to get out of a service which in law they undertook to provide, if the time has not arrived to consider seriously bringing the Canadian Pacific Railway under public ownership?


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Lest there be any mistake, I could not even indirectly agree to that proposition. Is it not a fact that government counsel have appeared before the former Board of Transport Commissioners and have placed various propositions before that board? This matter affects the people of Canada, and surely the government will not regard it as panic to place the views and propositions of this Parliament before the Transport Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the last two supplementaries are argumentative.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the operations of Canadian National Railways with which the government possibly has closer liaison. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will make efforts toward influencing Canadian National Railways as much as they possibly can to continue passenger services now being operated in remote areas of Canada and which are necessary to the survival of the people in those areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind suggesting to the Minister of Transport that he should, to use the words of the hon. member, influence this Crown corporation. I have suggested in the past weeks that I would try to influence other crown corporations, but the House did not consider that was a proper procedure. However, I will ask the Minister of Transport to use whatever influence he has over this publicly owned corporation. I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, in reference to a previous question, that I fail to see how taking over the Canadian Pacific Railway would solve this particular problem because we have in the CNR a Crown corporation which nevertheless needs to be influenced a little bit.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Robert Simpson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I point out that in relation to



November 6, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry manipulating Crown corporations, the Secretary of State said, as appeared in the April 26 issue of the Ottawa Journal:
Nowadays you can leave the written press free if you can manipulate the radio and television facilities.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. That, of course, is not a point of order. At the beginning of the question period I would invite the co-operation of hon. members to move on as soon as possible to other questions. If we spend too much time on one question, the Chair gets in difficulty with members who feel they should have been called upon to ask their questions earlier. I also take this opportunity to remind hon. members that there is a forty-minute limit on the question period. Some hon. members will be first, others necessarily will be last, and I try to be as fair as I can and call on hon. members as quickly as I can. I hope that from day to day members who are called at the last will not hold it against the Chair because they have not been called first.


Mr. Speaker:: I wish to allow the hon. member for Crowfoot to ask a supplementary. He was unfortunately lost in the fray. He asked the original question and did not have the opportunity of asking a supplementary. I feel very badly about this.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not mind being put aside for a while, but I did want to have the last word. I wish to ask the Prime Minister if the government will give consideration to providing an opportunity at an early date, possibly in the Transportation Committee, to allow this whole question of passenger service and the commitment for passenger service from coast to coast to be studied in order to determine the need in view of the particular concern of the Canadian people all across Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have had the last word.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I assume from the Prime Minister's reply, Mr. Speaker, that he is in agreement with having this question studied in the Transportation Committee at an early opportunity. He nodded his head and I just wanted to confirm his agreement.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: wish to address a question to the Minister of

Labour. It is my understanding that association executives and negotiating members of seven Vancouver longshoremen's locals met yesterday afternoon and last night in an endeavour to resolve the dispute and that there have been some new proposals. In view of this serious situation, is it possible for the Minister of Labour to comment on the information he has in order to bring us up to date?


Hon. Bryce Maclcasey (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The ILWU have come up with some proposals which will be considered at meetings of the several locals at one o'clock p.m. Vancouver time. I anticipate that the results of those meetings and votes will be known at six o'clock Vancouver time. If the deliberations and votes are favourable, it is quite conceivable the men will be back to work in a day or two.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell the House whether he has received a reply to the diplomatic note sent to the French government concerning Mr. Lipkowski's visit to Quebec?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions between our ambassador and the foreign minister of France have not yet taken place.


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the critical situation which has developed, as pointed out by the Independent Petroleum Association of Canada, when will the minister be in a position to announce revisions in the national oil policy which will allow the petroleum industry to fulfil the greatly increasing demand, both national and international, for Canadian oil?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The main responsibility for the oil policy, Mr. Speaker, comes
November 6, 1969
under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Stanley Stanford Schumacher: May I then direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question of national oil policy is under constant review. There is a particularly critical review going on at the present time in light of the hearings of the Schultz Committee, the presidential committee on oil in Washington, in connection with Canadian oil policy. We are in constant communication with our United States counterparts to assure that the Canadian interests are considered in the United States review and so that Canadian producers can have the maximum access to the United States market, a most advantageous oil market.



INDUSTRY


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is the minister holding a meeting this week with the potash producers? If so, what is the purpose of the meeting?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much whether the question as asked is the type of question which should be asked during the question period.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a point of order, it is a very urgent matter involving the stand of the federal government, certain positions of the Saskatchewan provincial government, and an important sector of the Canadian economy. I urge that a question on this subject be allowed.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be pleased to accept a question but not the one asked by the hon. member. The hon. member for Calgary North.


John Stratford Burton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Calgary North and will return to the hon. member for Regina East.
Inquiries of the Ministry TAXATION



CONFIDENTIALITY OF WHITE PAPER

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the white paper on taxation was to remain confidential and in view of the invitation to hon. members to attend a confidential briefing, will the Prime Minister check and advise the House tomorrow whether there has been any leakage in reference to the white paper on taxation? I ask this question in view of statements made at noon by radio commentators and statements made in the press in reference to what may be contained in that white paper.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to check this, but during the many months that this matter has been discussed by cabinet anything that has been published heretofore has been done merely by way of speculation. We are rather satisfied with the fact that there have been no leaks at all. If, today, there is a continuation of the speculation, there is nothing I can do about it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I put to the Prime Minister in view of his answer that there has been some speculation. Since the Prime Minister has not checked into this matter, would he do so and give an assurance to the House in this regard in view of its importance to the economy and taxpayers of Canada?



INDUSTRY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the minister to meet with the potash producers? If so, would the minister inform the House as to the government's stand with regard to the Saskatchewan plan involving licensing, minimum prices and prorationing of production?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is to be such a meeting tomorrow between producers in the potash industry and officers of my department. The purpose of the meeting is to gather from these people maximum information on their views, as well as

November 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry to bring to their attention some of the cautions that I have already brought to the attention of the premier of Saskatchewan in terms of constitutionality, in terms of feasibility and in terms of economic desirability.
The House will observe that I have been rather reticent to pronounce judgment on these matters for the simple reason that nobody knows what the package that the premier of Saskatchewan is trying to put together will consist of at the end of the day. It is, of course, very difficult to comment on it before we see what it comprises. Obviously there is a difference between prorating for the purpose of conservation and controlling exports and prices.


John Stratford Burton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government examining those aspects of the plan, as far as they are known to the government, that may discriminate against both Canadian producers and consumers and may result in fixed prices in Canada but no control over prices in the U.S.A.?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the name of the game, Mr. Speaker.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Has the minister, in his role of Postmaster General, been advised that notice of his inauguration as Minister of Communications in respect of the audio-communique system for radio stations on November 5 was not received by certain stations in eastern Canada by mail until November 6, the day after the blessed event? Has the minister been giving thought to the expedition of mail delivery as another technique to improve communications ?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a suggestion and he has to assume that it will be considered by the minister.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and is prompted by the many submissions that I and many other members of the House of Commons from New Brunswick are now receiving from veterans in that province. Is consideration

being given to the postponement of the transfer of the Lancaster Department of Veterans Affairs hospital to the Board of Commissioners of the Saint John General Hospital until the proposed veterans wing at the Saint John General Hospital is available to the veterans of the province?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I respectfully suggest to the hon. member that this is the type of question that should properly be discussed at the time of adjournment. I realize it is important and possibly very urgent, and if that is the case it should be discussed at the time of adjournment.


John Chester MacRae: Then I give such notice, Mr. Speaker.



UNITED NATIONS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he state to the House if Canada will abstain in the vote at the United Nations on the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations, as has been reported?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not customary for the government to state in advance the way Canada will vote, because one can never tell whether there might not be last minute developments. The vote takes place tomorrow. I shall be very happy to explain after the vote why we acted the way we did.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question. Would the minister agree that it would be quite inconsistent with Canada's policy of negotiating for recognition to abstain on this question?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I think our vote tomorrow will be entirely consistent with our negotiations in Stockholm.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister inform the House whether or not he is conferring with Secretary of State Rogers before making a decision?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the Secretary of State for External
November 6, 1969	COMMONS
Affairs has the floor, may I ask him whether he has had any recent negotiations with the United States government regarding the phasing out of U.S. military bases in Canada and whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: -before recognizing Red China he would recognize that Newfoundland is part of Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



BANK OF CANADA


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. In this period of inflation, and in view of the government's effort to control prices and wages, did the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance approve the increase in salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada from $50,000 to $100,000?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question. If the Prime Minister did not approve it, what organization or body did approve it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No one, Mr. Speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both the hon. member for Wellington and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre are rising on a supplementary. I think the original question could well have been placed on the order paper since we are dealing with a situation ex post facto. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister rose to answer just a little too quickly, and so I allowed the supplementary on the part of the hon. member for Wellington. However, I do not think we should get into a debate on the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker, due to a slight error in the question the Prime Minister was able to give the House a misleading answer. Was not the raise to $75,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the correct question might be placed on the order paper.
DEBATES	587
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



WATER RESOURCES


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Could he tell us whether the officials of his department have been in touch with the governments of Quebec and Ontario regarding the diversion of the waters of the James bay basin, what has been called the Grand Canal project? Could the minister tell us whether studies in this field are going on at the federal level?


John James Greene: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



POLLUTION


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries may I direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Does the breaking up of a loaded tanker off the coast of New England yesterday pose a pollution threat to Canada's eastern coastal waters? If so, what steps is the government taking to counteract it?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of any pollution threat to Canada, but I will be glad to take notice of the hon. member's question and look into the matter. If any pollution is threatening Canada, we will certainly take such action as is available to us under the applicable legislation.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the minister whether the government is undertaking research programs in connection with the special problems of oil dispersion in the Arctic?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, there is continual research being conducted into pollution, including the possibility of pollution in the Arctic as well as elsewhere. I know of no program within my department that is specifically directed to the question of oil pollution in the Arctic, but certainly this matter is well within the ambit of our total framework of research programs.
November 6, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


James Aloysius McGrath: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I can perhaps direct to the government House leader, whom we all welcome back to the House. Would the government, in view of the importance of this subject, give consideration to referring this matter to the appropriate committee of the House for investigation so that the evidence can be heard and correlated?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his first but, I am sure, not his last question to me this session. As in respect of all the others, I will take it into consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I seek the co-operation of hon. members. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate, but if he will look to his left and other hon. members will look around them, they will see how many hon. members are anxious to ask questions. For this reason, I suggest there should not be so many supplementary questions.


John Howard Lundrigan: May we be assured that the position of the federal government will be made clear to international bodies responsible in respect of pollution in order that our attitude toward this incident will be clear?


John James Greene: Yes. I think international questions in respect of ocean pollution are very much at the forefront of discussions. I believe Canada will be represented this weekend at an international conference which will discuss this specific matter.



GULP OF GEORGIA-REPRESENTATIONS FROM LABOUR ON OIL DRILLING

['Other questions along this line have been asked. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Agriculture and I personally have visited the area in question and the government has been considering the situation. I expect an announcement of government policy to be made shortly.']
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, may I direct a related question to the attention of the minister's usually well informed parliamentary secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Barry Mather: Have representations been received from labour organizations in British Columbia protesting what they consider to be threatened pollution in Canada's Garden of Eden as a result of impending plans to drill for oil in the Gulf of Georgia-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has had the floor for a while now. Will he put his question?


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, have representations been received from British Columbia organizations protesting the impending plans for oil drilling in the Gulf of Georgia?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. During our investigations we found that the province has given authority for seismic testing. We do not feel that this testing will cause any damage to marine life, but the federal authorities certainly will be taking a hard look at this project before giving any drilling permits in this area, because of the pollution risk.



Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in relation to his remarks on October 24 in the House about the relief program for Nigeria-Biafra. He indicated that if the present blockade of the relief operation is not removed quickly, other appropriate steps will be taken. Can he give us some idea as to how long this government is going to wait, and make some suggestion as to the other initiatives that might now be open to it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may answer this question on behalf of the Prime Minister. We have recently held conversations with the Candian Red Cross. General Wrinch is now in Geneva and we are hoping to hear from him soon. The main problem, as the hon. member knows, is that they have not been able to work out an agreement on daylight flights, which is by far the best way to handle the matter. If this cannot be accomplished, we will have to look at the situation again. In the meantime, we are talking to the Red Cross. I think it is most important that we should not undermine the efforts of that great international organization.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, since our government has now waited many months for the Red Cross to clear up these difficulties, can the minister indicate whether any deadline has been expressed or what is the exact interpretation to be placed on the words of the Prime Minister "not quickly removed"?
November 6, 1969


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure we all want to support the Red Cross as long as its members feel there is still a chance to obtain approval for daylight flights.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can say that one of the steps taken relates to aid to the church organizations and Canairelief which have in fact been flying supplies in to the starving people of Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been holding discussions with the church groups and Canairelief who also would like to have daylight flights. I am sure hon. members would agree that this is desirable.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: In view of the very serious situation on the prairies resulting from the unharvested grain and the inability to find adequate markets for grain in store which have led to very drastic cash shortages affecting the whole western economy, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon whether the government is giving consideration to implementing an immediate program of acreage payments to alleviate this intolerable situation?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Other questions along this line have been asked. As the hon. member knows, the Minister of Agriculture and I personally have visited the area in question and the government has been considering the situation. I expect an announcement of government policy to be made shortly.



POLLUTION


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether in recent months Canada has given consideration to representations, not only at the immediate Conference on the Sea but at the much broader one to be held in 1971, concerning the burying of fissionable material in the Atlantic depths?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, under the aegis of the United Nations there will be an international conference on this subject in 1971 or 1972. Certainly, my department, along
Inquiries of the Ministry with the Department of External Affairs, has given very careful consideration to Canadian representation at this conference. I feel sure that Canada will be represented and will state her position very clearly at that time.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, will the minister indicate whether Canada is now adopting a position in respect of the custom of the United States of burying this fissionable material in the depths of the Atlantic Ocean, in this day and age when we are all concerned about pollution, particularly this worst type?


John James Greene: I believe this very question is under discussion at the present time. Perhaps the Department of External Affairs is more directly concerned with this problem. It may be that the minister can elaborate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that this information should be conveyed to the House in due course by way of a statement on motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is similar to a question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twil-lingate. Has the minister had discussions with his counterpart in the United States government regarding the future of United States military and naval bases in this country, and whether any will be affected by the recently announced policy of that government to phase out over 300 bases round the world?


Mitchell William Sharp: Quite clearly, Mr. Speaker, the United States, like Canada, has been engaged in some retrenching operations, and we can hardly protest about them. We have, however, been discussing with the United States government the notice that should be accorded to Canadian employees. We have been urging upon them, not as successfully as we would wish, some greater notice than they have given. I think that is the extent to which we can protest. In fact, as hon. members of the House know, I have been engaged in somewhat similar operations.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could indicate the result of the negotiations
590	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry he has had with his United States counterpart in an effort to have the term of 30 days notice to employees with 20 to 25 years service extended so that they might have some indication of the extent of his negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I indicated in my previous answer, our representations have not been very successful. We have been unable to change the practice of the United States government in this respect, notwithstanding the strongest possible representations on behalf of Canadians.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister the following question. On October 29 I asked him a question which arose from a report that officers of the United States Interstate Commerce Commission were entering Canada to examine the records of Canadian truckers. He said he would look into the matter. Has he any further information to give the House at the present time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did look into the question, Mr. Speaker, and discussed it with the Department of Transport. Perhaps officials of that department could give a more detailed answer. In summary, we understand there has been no such intervention or inspection in Canada by the ICC, but the responsible United States agency does have some arrangement whereby it inspects Canadian trucks in the same way that we have a similar arrangement with the United States which entitles us, as I understand it,, to make certain inspections. This is a matter of convenience between the two governments, and the companies involved, so that instead of stopping the trucks at the border there is inspection inside the country. If the hon. member wishes further details he might ask the Minister of Transport when he is in the House.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since, as a result of instructions of the federal Energy
[Mr. Lundrigan.)
DEBATES	November G, 1969
Control Board, Ontario Hydro has been forced to halt construction on its Bruce nuclear generating station and move it to a new site, was the federal Energy Control Board aware of the original building plans of Ontario Hydro for the Bruce nuclear generating station?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest this question should be placed on the order paper.



PLACING OF CATNIP ON RESTRICTED LIST

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the reported prosecution in Port Arthur of a person for selling catnip to the R.C.M.P.-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is a serious question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this fact, has the minister put catnip on the restricted list? If not, will he consult with his colleague the Solicitor General concerning whether prosecutions of this nature are in order?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I will be pleased to consult with my colleague the Solicitor General on this question.



MARIJUANA-CONSIDERATION OF LEGALIZATION

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. In view of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to the effect that his department is considering legalizing marijuana, what has the Minister of Justice to say about this?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for South Western Nova.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western
Nova): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister where applications-
John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the minister would allow the hon. member who started his question to continue, and then I will return to the minister's question of privilege.
November 6, 1969


Mr. Comeau:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
Prime Minister where applications may be made to apply for a seven-hour $250 a day job?



MARIJUANA-CONSIDERATION OF LEGALIZATION

John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege. I think the hon. member should be aware that he is very badly misinformed. I made no such statement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am glad to hear the minister deny it. Then, he must have been misquoted and this puts the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Justice at last in the same bed.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has already raised a question of privilege. I suggest there should be no debate on the matter. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member might get together and decide just exactly what has been said.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Does he intend to recommend any legislation to prohibit all advertising on radio or television concerning cigarette smoking?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe this is an urgent question. It might be put on the order paper.



INFORMATION


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that the report of the task force on government information revealed that approximately 40 per cent of Canadian farmers were not aware of the government's retraining programs or even the location of manpower centres, is it the intention of the government to
Inquiries of the Ministry provide some emergency information to the farmers or must they wait for a white paper on this subject?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PAN-AMERICAN GAMES-INQUIRY AS TO FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO WINNIPEG

Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the settlement the government is proposing to offer the Expo Corporation to cover its deficit, is the same consideration being given to the city of Winnipeg to cover the deficit incurred during the Pan-Am games, the major Canadian sports event of centennial year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question was raised in the debate yesterday and I am obtaining information on it.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that veterinary medicines and biologies for the prevention of livestock diseases are equally important to those for the treatment of diseases, and in many cases are the same basic biologies, can the minister assure the farmers and ranchers that there will be a discontinuance of the 15 per cent duty on preventative biologies that was imposed in August of this year as a result of the re-interpretation of the Canada Customs Act by some overzealous customs inspectors?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the question is one which might very well be debated at the time of adjournment.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was extremely critical of President Nixon's recent statement of United States policy on Viet

November 6, 1969
Business of the House Nam as being unlikely to lead to peace in that unfortunate land, has the Canadian government made known to the United States government its views on this important international question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, might I be permitted to revert to the usual custom of asking the government house leader about the business for the rest of this week and next week?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, today, as hon. members know, we are to continue with the second reading stage of item No. 8, Bill C-6 in respect of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition, to be followed by item No. 11, Bill No. C-8 in respect of the children of war dead.
I should like to call the attention of the House to a change in the business announced last night. Item No. 19, in respect of Bill C-135 to amend the Students Loans Act, will not follow as the third item. Rather, we will proceed to item No. 4, Bill C-2 in respect of the Judges Act and item No. 23, Bill C-136 in respect of the Expropriation Act. It is hoped that by the time the House rises at three o'clock tomorrow afternoon, second reading of these four bills may be achieved.
On Monday next, the first item of business to be called will be No. 14, Bill C-ll in respect of the Railway Act, to be followed by item No. 6, Bill C-4 in respect of the Canada Corporations Act.
The House will not sit, as hon. members know, on Tuesday due to Remembrance Day but on Wednesday the business to be called will be item No. 19, Bill C-135 in respect of the Canada Students Loans Act; item No. 12, Bill C-9 in respect of the Small Businesses Loans Act and item No. 10, Bill C-7 in respect of the Canadian National Railways. If there are any changes in this order, every effort will be made to announce them in the House in advance.


Alfred Dryden Hales: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation, and add also the appreciation of every hon. member of the House, to you and your staff for the appearance for the first time of this very colourful new seating plan which has been distributed today. I am sure it will be

most useful to the thousands of visitors who grace our galleries from time to time. We appreciate the explanation therein in respect of the reason members may or may not be at their desks from time to time. I am sure the House appreciates your efforts, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-6, to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments connected therewith, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the heart of the matter, I should like to request your indulgence since, for a few seconds, I shall be in order only partly, I think; in this case, I base myself on a precedent created yesterday, for I heard some of my colleagues pay tribute to those who were at the origin of the Canadian Corporation for the World Exhibition. For instance, they referred to the honourable Mark Drouin, who has died since, and to the Commissioner, His Excellency Pierre Dupuy, who served with such distinction and who has also left us for a better world.
I feel I am complying with the wishes of every hon. member in paying tribute also to a great man, one who has contributed the most to the creation of Expo, that is Mr. Jean Drapeau, mayor of Montreal. I am doing it not only because I believe he deserves the gratefulness of all hon. members and of all Canadians but also the sympathy of the house and of every Canadian for the shocking, ungrateful and dirty way he has been treated since then by people throwing bombs at his house and his place of business.
Having said this, I now turn to Bill C-6 entitled: An Act to wind up the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition and to authorize the writing-off of certain costs and the deferral of certain payments
November 6, 1989

connected therewith. The explanatory note states clearly that the purposes of this bill is:
(a)	to provide for the dissolution of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition;
Nobody can object to that, I think, because it is in order.
The second purpose of this bill is, and I quote:
(b)	to authorize the disposition of the remaining assets and liabilities of the Corporation;
There might be differences of opinion as to the manner of disposing of the assets and liabilities, but the government proposes a solution which will be discussed at the meetings of the appropriate committee. The third purpose of this bill is:
(c)	to stop interest accruing on the outstanding notes of the Corporation payable to the Government of Canada and thus prevent the accumulation of additional liability in respect of those notes and to write-off one hundred and twenty-five million dollars representing Canada's share of the deficit of the Corporation;
It must be admitted that this is an economy measure which can be easily accounted for and it will be possible to put questions to the minister in the committee.
Here is the fourth purpose of the bill:
(d)	to authorize the deferral to 1972 of payment by Quebec of not more than five million five hundred thousand dollars due in 1969-70 in connection with the operations of the Corporation.
As we know, the government has taken such action in order to take advantage of the request made by the city of Montreal to cope with unemployment there. It is therefore a rather fictitious expenditure, since the equivalent would have been spent on unemployment insurance and welfare allowances.
The minister explained in greater detail the reasons for every provision of the bill.
After the minister's statement, the bill seemed quite clear and simple to me, and even the opposition praised it no end. Therefore, I thought the debate would only take a few hours, just long enough perhaps to hear the few usual speeches from members of the opposition, so that the measure could be referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee, where questions and explanations could be asked, concern expressed and answers obtained from the minister and his experts.
I would not have dared intervene in the debate if all members had agreed that it might save time. But since the whole day yesterday was spent in bringing all kinds of
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation charges against the government and distorting the facts, I feel duty bound today to answer at least briefly.
While I felt the debate was unnecessary, I listened to all the interventions of the opposition, including statements that were petty and at times disquieting.
I hope that I am mistaken, because I do not pride myself on being infallible. However, I thought I perceived in certain members an intention to express, indirectly and discreetly, while heaping praises on the minister, some feelings of jealousy toward the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec because of Expo. Some also took the opportunity to attack the government.
Mr. Speaker, in my view this is uncalled for,, since we are dealing with an exceptional measure. In fact "Man and his World" has been the finest monument ever erected to the Canadian way of life, for all the world to see, thanks to the co-operation of all-whoever they may be: the Progressive Conservative party, other parties or all citizens, even those who are not interested in politics.
This achievement was the result of co-operation from the beginning. At least this time we managed to agree on a tremendous achievement for the sake of Canada's prestige. I think we should not give the rest of the world the impression we are mice trying to nibble away at this monument's base, but that we can work together and complete this wonderful undertaking that was launched so successfully.
Of course, some people always worry and we must try to reassure them.
First of all, I wish to deny that this was a gift to the city of Montreal, and I can prove it. On the contrary, I believe, as I already said, that it was a co-operative effort from all Canadians toward the development of this country, and that Montrealers and Quebecers did more than their share, or at least their share, shall we say, not to exaggerate.
We are told that Expo cost every Canadian $7, but it is perhaps not known that it also cost Quebecers more than $7. They have indeed paid $18, Montrealers have paid $75, not taking into account the sharing of the deficit that we shall pay as Canadians, Quebecers and Montrealers. The contribution of each Montrealer, Mr. Speaker, will amount to some $75.
This is to say that Quebecers, mostly Montrealers, have done more than their share and have not really got anything free, gratis and
November 6, 1969

Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation for nothing. Rather it is they who gave something to the rest of the country in their great kindness, a present so to speak, but I shall not stress that word unduly. At least they proved their willingness to do their share.
The same holds true for the breakdown of Expo costs: they said that Canada would finance 50 per cent of the cost, Quebec 37| per cent and Montreal 12 per cent. However, with respect to the 50 per cent contributed by the federal government, we must recognize that about 16 per cent thereof comes from taxes collected in the province of Quebec. Therefore, Quebec did its share.
I have quoted those figures for the benefit of those who might worry and who think that on this occasion there was a lack of distributive justice in Canada; I would like to show them that, on the contrary, Quebecers and mostly Montrealers are willing to co-operate with the rest of the country, when Canada's welfare is at stake.
In the course of this debate, Mr Speaker, it has also been said to my amazement that Expo cost considerably more than had been anticipated originally. I have here the official report of the House of Commons debates recording the words of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this matter. Indeed on December 20, 1963, as is recorded at page 6213, the latter spoke in the following terms and I quote:

In 1959 the Montreal chamber of commerce prepared a brief. In 1960, on February 10, I announced that Canada would apply to I.B.E. for the fair; that Ottawa would guarantee $20 million, Quebec $15 million and the city of Montreal $5 million.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)

That is what had been anticipated in 1960.
Mr. Speaker, I feel almost tempted to be nasty to my friends opposite and remind them that the then responsible authorities for Expo, the Commissioner at that time, were of the same politicial stripe as they are. I have the feeling that those people-his associates and himself-lacked vision, did not imagine that Canada had to meet a greater challenge than what they pictured.
Those figures, moreover, were much too conservative. They did not show enough vision to anticipate the great support from people all over the world who would come to Canada on that occasion, to anticipate the number of countries which would wish to take part in Expo, as well as the number of

statesmen who would come here with impressive retinues to visit what Canada and all the other participating countries had to show to the modern world.
I forgive them for making wrong predictions, but the government should not now be blamed for shortsightedness because the people who made wrong predictions had been appointed by our friends on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I readily admit that nobody in the world could have forecast in 1960, 1961, 1962 or 1963 the tremendous success of the exhibition. Planning was as sound as could be but, considering the unprecedented number of countries anxious to take part in Expo and the millions of people who were then planning to visit us, the Expo site had to be enlarged, facilities and staff had to be increased. They were recruited within the private sector and, since it was for temporary employment, they obviously had to be paid more than had been expected.
Mr. Speaker, it is no cause for surprise that the exhibition should have left us with a deficit of $143 million, at least as far as the federal government is concerned. No matter what the Auditor General says, I maintain that the exhibition has left us with assets worth more than that deficit. The Auditor General of Canada has overlooked them. They are most valuable and more than compensate the deficit for Canada.
These are moral assets, Mr. Speaker: invaluable prestige, such as Canada never enjoyed before and acquired through the exhibition which brought citizens of many other countries to visit us. They now know the true image of Canada, a giant emerging from sleep in 1969, thanks, first of all, to Expo, then to "Man and His World."
Mr. Speaker, such things are bought and are paid for, even with money, nowadays. The research and the experiments that were carried out will bear fruit in many sectors of our economy and of our industry. What nobody would have dared undertake before because the necessary money could not be found in the usual budgets, was done with the Expo budget. Such things will profit our scientists, manufacturers and businessmen for centuries. All year round, funds are being spent for research and our friends opposite are the first to blame the government for not investing enough in that field. Now, we had a unique opportunity for research which resulted some new techniques.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government's share in the deficit have contributed to the
November 6. 1969	COMMONS
advancement of research. The results were so many that I would have to speak for hours on end to explain what I have seen, and I am only a layman.
What about the publicity given to Canada and its undertakings? Everyone knows how publicity is costly. My friends opposite are the first to criticize the government sometimes for spending too much on publicity for Canada. We got the benefit of indirect publicity which would have cost us millions of dollars and would not have been as effective, since it attracted to Canada a great number of visitors who came to see for themselves that our country was one of the most active in the world.
With regard to the Expo deficit, we should keep in mind the Auditor General's function.
I do not want to criticize him because his job is not to appraise moral, intellectual or scientific values but to add figures. He is doing a fine job. If reliance is placed solely on his evidence to condemn the deficit of Expo '67, then any argument is unfair and practically dishonest in some cases.
What has Expo brought us that does not appear in the official reports? Revenue in the form of taxes that have been derived from the tourist trade. This means considerable sums of money that have not been added to the good results brought about by Expo. Today, when this great event has ended brilliantly, some would start beefing-if I may use this expression that is not taken from Bossu-et-when we have succeeded in building something as tremendous as that, without taking into account a number of things that undeniably and unquestionably exist and that have brought to Canada considerable and needed additional revenue for the benefit of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, Expo '67 has brought us more than that still. I am thinking of the ties which have been established through Expo. A number of businessmen came from various countries to establish commercial and industrial connections with Canadian businessmen, financiers and manufacturers. Such connections are of priceless value to the Canadian people. Let us think of that, rather than criticize additional expenses which by the way, are nothing out of the ordinary, since the initial estimates go back to 1960 and the scope of this exhibition has more than doubled; actually it increased fourfold, as compared with the first estimations.
Mr. Speaker, Expo had another result that adding machines will not be able to compute:
DEBATES	595
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation it reinforced national unity. All the countries which took part in the World Exhibition and whose citizens came to Canada, join hands today in a spirit of good will; they have gained a better mutual understanding and have a sincere desire for peace.
Those results of Expo cannot be denied. I believe the deficit of Expo, which will cost Canadians $125 million, not to mention the City of Montreal and the province of Quebec, will be offset by the circulation of additional money.
Expo will have tangible results. As I said before, Expo is the most beautiful memorial ever erected to Canadianism. All Canadians should rally around this memorial, and give up all petty thoughts at this point, when Expo is about to wind up.
Mr. Speaker, I think that I should bring my comments to a close, even if it is only to prove that I believe a little in what I have just said.
What is the minister asking us to do, after having given his explanations? To refer that bill to the parliamentary committee, because he will be there with his experts and he will answer all our questions. If we are not satisfied, the bill will be sent back to the House and we will then be free to air our grievances.
The opposition has the right to question public expenditures, but at least when an important achievement which will affect the future of Canada and of many other countries is concerned, hon. members should certainly not make malicious assumptions or dubious statements.
In my view-and all government members agree with me, I think-one must admit, so that no doubts remain in the minds of the members of the opposition, that Expo was an achievement to which everyone contributed to the full extent of their power, even the opposition parties.
As good citizens of Canada, we should put an end to all objections and hasten to refer this bill to the designated committee where questions can be asked and answers listened to and checked, so that the bill may come back to the House where every member will be able to vote on it according to his lights.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, this is where we pay up for our one-hundredth birthday party and I believe
November 6, 1969

Dissolution of Expo 196 7 Corporation most Canadians are willing to pay if convinced the overspending was reasonable. I believe there is very little disposition in the minds of Canadians generally to question cases of additional expenditure where reasonable overtime was required and where things were done in good faith to make the birthday party and Expo a success. However, I rather resent some of the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). I should like to answer in a friendly spirit, and perhaps explain to him some of the things which motivate those of us who are questioning the expenditures for Expo.
I do not think we can ignore any instances of bad faith there may have been during the construction of the Expo site, nor can we afford to make further mistakes in winding up the Expo corporation.
I should like to make some comments on the hon. member's speech, Mr. Speaker. He seemed to think there might be some hidden jealousy of Montreal in the speeches of members of the opposition and suggested that where good projects were involved, troublesome minds were at work. But, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anybody in this country who feels any resentment toward either Montreal or Quebec in connection with Expo 67. As a matter of fact, it is exactly the opposite; it was a tremendous national project in which Montreal, the Province of Quebec and all Canadians joined. We were proud of Montreal, of the show they put on, and we were proud of the people of the province of Quebec. People from all over the country went to Montreal for Expo 67, were thrilled by it and heartened by the friendliness of the people of Quebec. They returned to their homes full of good will. Surely, no one is trying to spoil this result of a real effort on the part of all Canadians.
However, government supervision of the project and the activities in connection with winding it up must be questioned. At least, these are matters which concern me. There is no doubt in the world that a lot of mistakes were made as a result of bad judgment, and these cost money. I am sure some can be justified by the fact that there was a time limit; there was just no way of postponing the day of opening. However, we do not have this excuse now and further mistakes in winding up should be prevented, although there are some things in this bill which I believe to be wrong.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres said that all Canadians had benefltted financially

from Expo 67. In a sense that is true, but I come from a tourist area in a tourist province and I can tell the hon. member that in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and in Ontario generally, tourist revenues in 1967 dropped as low as they have ever been. They dropped right down to nothing because everybody was going to Montreal. However, I never heard one word of complaint. People felt that if they were losing money, then they would probably make up for it the next year. The deficit about which we are talking amounts to $7 per head, but some of these people lost thousands. They just hoped that then- usual customers would return the next year. The hope had been expressed that tourists would take a triangular or circular tour through our part of the country when returning to their homes in the United States or the west. This did not happen but people in my riding did not complain about it. This is the spirit in which the great effort of the city of Montreal was accepted. Nevertheless, it must not be forgotten that they did lose large sums of money.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres also mentioned generosity, and asked if we were going to be niggardly about a few million dollars in settling the affairs of this Corporation. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out that Winnipeg has a deficit of less than one million dollars as a result of the Pan-Am Games, a pittance compared with Expo. However, as far as I can gather, this government has not made any commitment to assist in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Yes, there was.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I hope so, but no reply was made to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday. If an answer has been given since it was the fastest answer I have ever heard in this place.


Jean-Luc Pepin: They were asking for extra money.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: 
Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it may save time if I inform the hon. member that the remaining assets are minimal. Also, I shall be reporting on these matters, as well as on others, in the normal way. There is nothing strange, difficult or abnormal about this question of assets.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I do not doubt that the minister will be perfectly above-board with us. I do not question the minister's honesty or veracity in connection with this matter. Nevertheless, for all I know he may soon be promoted to a position of greater glory. He may not be here and one of his less forthright colleagues might take over the minister's job. Yet again, the minister may be defeated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The assets are not worth
stealing.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The minister says the assets are not worth stealing. A few dollars here or there do not matter, perhaps. I was given to understand that between $50 million and $75 million worth of assets remain for disposal. At any rate, that is what we understood from the minister's remarks yesterday. The minister cannot divert my trend of thought. He
DEBATES	597
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation need not explain to anyone how he is to dispose of these assets. The bill does not require him to explain, and it is that to which I object. For instance, a building that has cost several millions of dollars to erect could be acquired by another party for $1. On the other hand, there might be cases where accounts owing to the federal government or to Expo Corporation are wiped out. I should be interested to hear about these matters. For instance, it is quite possible that debts owing to Expo will be cancelled. I do not know the laws of Quebec too well, but I do know that in most provinces of Canada there is a statute of limitations under which debts owing may be collected at least six or seven years after those debts have been incurred. After that period, the debtor may invoke the statute of limitations. In this case, debts owing to Expo Corporation may be eliminated at the stroke of a pen. Perhaps no money is owing to the Corporation; but I should be quite surprised to learn that there are no outstanding contracts or that there are no contracts which have not been terminated in some manner. The minister can terminate them and wipe out debts owing with a stroke of his pen, and he need not explain anything to anyone.
The minister may well say that he will explain everything to us; but it is the principle of the bill that is wrong. It seems to us that the government is saying that its authority is not to be limited by the control of Parliament and that it does not have the responsibility of reporting back to parliament on certain matters. I do not care whether the amount involved is $1 or $1 million; the principle of the bill is wrong, and we object to it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: It is the principle of the bill itself that counts. As I said, the provisions of the bill make it unnecessary for the minister to report back to this House after he has disposed of the assets of Expo Corporation. I think this bill ought to be amended in committee so that public tenders are required for the sale of assets.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But the assets have been disposed of already.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Then, why does the government not eliminate the clause to which we object?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The assets have been disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are not progressing in an orderly
November 6, 1969

Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation way. My understanding is that the types of questions being asked by the hon. member, and the answers given by the minister, ought normally to be considered when the bill is before the committee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is quite right, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is such an amiable person, I do not object to his interruptions. I ask, if the assets are all gone, what are we doing now? We may as well dispose of this bill immediately, or the government could withdraw it. At any rate, the minister could withdraw the pertinent clause of the bill I am discussing. I think he is exaggerating.
I merely wanted to draw this particular clause to the attention of the House because, in passing this bill, Parliament will be divesting itself of any power to control the public properties involved. That is the principle to which we object. I think the minister ought to make it very clear that he has no assets for disposal.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have already said that.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: In that case, could we not withdraw the clause? If the assets are so miniscule that it does not matter, could the clause not be withdrawn? Perhaps the minister may want to amend the bill so that even those miniscule items still remaining could be sold by public tender. I think the federal government can afford the cost of advertising in our newspapers.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the position of a man who is suffering from the hangover that comes after a big party. The hangover in question results from the actions of the present government, because it was in office when the expenditures covered by Bill C-6 were undertaken.
It is good to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) in the House. Initially, when the opposition of the day warned the government of the magnitude of the cost Canadian taxpayers would have to bear unless the government took some action to protect the taxpayers, our present Secretary of State for External Affairs was the minister responsible for Expo. He was unwilling to allow a committee of the House to examine the activities of the management of Expo '67 to determine whether excessive expenditures were being made in respect of Expo.

[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I wish to refer to a question I asked the acting Prime Minister (Mr. Martin) on June 22, 1965, as recorded on Pages 2744 and 2745 of Hansard for that year. I asked the government to set up a special committee to investigate expenditures in connection with Expo '67. This request was made on the basis of information tabled in reply to question 397 in which the House was informed the expenditures of the federal government had risen from the initial $20 million to more than $64 million. On June 22, as recorded at page 2803 of Hansard, I indicated my concern over the unwillingness of the federal government to set up a committee because at that time I feared the expenditures might rise to $100 million. I felt that would have been an excessive figure. All I can say in connection with the bill now before us is that I certainly took a pessimistic view of the big spenders across the way.
It appears from the comments of the minister to the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) that there has not been much change in the government's approach to these matters. The minister says the assets are minimal, whereas the auditor-general places their value somewhere between $50 million and $60 million. That may be minimal to the minister, but it is certainly not minimal to the taxpayers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Carman Coates: The minister is following in the footsteps of a former minister of that department who said "what's a million?". We have now reached the point where this minister states, what's $50 million or $60 million. It all depends on the degree of inflation the Canadian people have to put up with and the attitudes of those who sit on the government front benches.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Come on!


Robert Carman Coates: The minister says "come on". He is upset, Mr. Speaker.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Could I interrupt you for one moment?


Robert Carman Coates: Sure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Robert Carman Coates: Perhaps we will have the benefit of the minister's views a little later. I would be very happy to hear from him. When I initially asked on June 22, 1965 that a committee be set up to examine the expenditures Of Expo '67 and the federal government's involvement therein, the present minister was the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Trade and Commerce. At that time, the present minister indicated to me that maybe in the fall a committee would be set up, but in fact a committee was not given the opportunity of examining the expenditures until well into 1966. This was after the late Robert Winters became Minister of Trade and Commerce. He willingly consented to an examination because he, like most Canadians, was becoming very concerned about what appeared to be a spending spree at Expo '67.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And you said you were satisfied.


Robert Carman Coates: Certainly, we were satisfied at that time. If the committee had been established in June 1965 a great many things that did happen might not have happened. As it turned out, it was too late to do anything about them. The same situation applies today. We are discussing a write-off of $122.8 million. We can only talk about it. We still have to pay the bill, but even at this late date Canadian taxpayers have the right to know that this government was asked to take action in 1965 and refused to do so. If they had taken action at that time, the bill today would not be nearly as large. That is the point I am trying to make.
It is only right that the people of this nation should be aware that a great many expenditures were made in relation to Expo '67 that do not come within the purview of this legislation, or, indeed, of Expo itself. I am referring to expenditures such as those incurred by the CBC, the National Harbours Board and the Department of Public Works. For example, an ice control structure erected by the Department of Public Works was originally estimated to cost $2.5 million. The final cost was $13 million, of which the federal government was responsible for $10.5 million. Inflation being what it is with this government in office, that's the way things go; $2.5 million becomes $10.5 million.
The expenditures of the National Harbours Board in the year 1964-65 were $2 million. For the year 1965-66, it was estimated they
DEBATES	599
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation would increase by an additional $3.8 million. However, in the supplementary estimates for 1965-66 this figure was increased by almost another $1 million.
The total cost of Expo '67 cannot be determined by a study of this bill. This would require an examination of every department of government. If such an examination were undertaken, the figure would be fantastically large, much more than the $122.8 million which we are now discussing. I feel this figure is a very small portion of the cost to Canadian taxpayers.
A statement made by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka deserves corroboration. He pointed out a previous speaker suggested that some Canadians, including some members of the opposition, were upset about the fact that Expo was located in the city of Montreal. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think Canadians everywhere were pleased that Montreal was the site of the fair and that it did such an outstanding job of giving the right impression to those people from other parts of Canada as well as those from other lands who visited Expo. However, all Canadians outside of Quebec certainly sacrificed a great deal in tourist dollars as a result of Expo '67.
[DOT] (4.10 p.m.)
As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken) said, although they did not complain they did find less cash flowing into their businesses in the Atlantic provinces. The tourist industry there showed substantially less return in 1967 compared with 1966. The tourist operators shouldered a very heavy burden that year as a result of Expo '67.
I have but one other point to make, Mr. Speaker. One of the matters that gave me greatest concern was the construction of Habitat '67. The government has yet to provide a full explanation of what is happening to this-


Mr. Soulham:: White elephant.


Robert Carman Coates: "White elephant" is the kindest phrase you could possibly use so far as the Canadian taxpayer is concerned. We do not know who is responsible for it, whether Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or somebody else. But I do know that it was not required in the first place. It cost many millions of dollars, and the taxpayer has had to foot the bill almost entirely. In my opinion Habitat '67 was, and still is, a monstrosity,
600	COMMONS
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation one of the most expensive monstrosities ever constructed in this country's history.
I await with interest and anticipation the comments of the minister when he rises to explain exactly what bills will be paid, whether there will be further bills later, what is going to happen to Habitat '67 and what the final bill will be.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have very few comments to make, following which I hope the minister will be able to answer the questions which have been asked.
I want to join with the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) in denying categorically that, as far as I am concerned, there is any question of jealousy or of being upset in the context of the remarks of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain). All Canadians were proud of the fact that Expo was held in the way it was; that it was held in the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec; that it brought to Canadians all over the country a sense of exhilaration, joy and happiness. It was a great event, and no one I know of has ever suggested anything to the contrary.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is over, finished. The money has been spent. I think we agree with the Tentmaker, who said:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on; nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.
Although we cannot now do anything about money that has been spent, I am here as one of 264 trustees of the people of Canada whose money is being utilized in a variety of ways. Consequently, I would be derelict in the exercise of my duty were I not to call to the attention of the House, and I hope ultimately to the committee, certain facts in connection with the financial program and administration of this Corporation.
I would not call back one cent, one five cent piece, of the money that was needed to be spent on the great and glorious spectacle that was Expo. Neither do I know of any member on this side of the House who would want to call back any of that money. However, I come from an area where there are a million acres under the snow; where thousands of people will have extreme difficulty in eking out a living this year; where, as the minister knows, there are tens of millions of bushels of grain which will not be harvested until next spring, and probably not harvested successfully even then.

DEBATES	November 6, 1969
I would not be carrying out my responsibility if I did not challenge certain of the workings of this Corporation with regard to Expo. I conceive it my duty to call to account people, corporations and administrations which have been delinquent, which have been guilty of extravagance and waste.
As to the future, we do not know what other areas of expenditure may be taken in hand. The lessons of Expo may well be lessons that can be usefully exploited and utilized by this or succeeding governments that undertake responsibilities that are related in their nature to the undertaking that was Expo.
With this in mind, Mr. Speaker, just what do we find? Right from the inception of this Corporation, an officer of this Parliament, independent and answerable only to Parliament, saw fit, in the exercise of his duties, to call to our attention, through the medium of the successive reports published by him, a number of aspects concerning the administration of Expo which he, the Auditor General, considered very dubious and which, at the very least, required explanation. These observations appear in the 1964 report and are pursued in the reports of 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968. I am quite convinced that the report for the fiscal year ending March 1969 will also have some interesting observations to make on this subject.
Merely because we say that Expo was a good show, a good party, that the people of Montreal and their mayor, the people of the province of Quebec, indeed the people of Canada, did a good job in putting it on, does not absolve us from the responsibility of making a careful examination of these accounts. All we can do, of course, is to carry on a post-mortem, and in this respect I wish to bring certain matters briefly to the attention of the House. Then, I will make a suggestion.
For example, may I refer to a matter that was brought to my attention by a person in my constituency, a constituency in which, as a result of certain factors, people occasionally read the report of the Auditor General. At page 154 of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year 1966-67 appears this paragraph:
In several cases relocation expenses involving substantial moving hotel and living expenses of newly-appointed senior officers and employees over extended periods would not have qualified for payment under the regulations laid down by the federal or provincial Treasury Boards. From the inception of the Corporation to December 31, 1966, approximately $150,000 has been spent on removal
November 6, 1969	COMMONS
expenses for newly-appointed employees. Six cases involved expenditures in excess of $4,000 each and, in one instance during 1966, $5,000 was paid for the shipment by air express of the employee's effects from overseas.
This is the kind of thing that I have to explain to the long-suffering people in the riding of Peace River. It is the kind of thing about which I am going to insist upon an answer, whether in this House, in the committee, or in the public accounts committee.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1968 at page 34, contains several interesting statements:
In the case of many appointments to senior positions, starting salaries were higher than the established minimum rates and frequently maximum rates were paid immediately or within six months of appointment. Thirty-three officers in receipt of salaries of $10,000 or more received increases during 1967 ranging from 20% to 60%. Of these employees, 10 left the corporation's employ in 1967 and received salary termination payments averaging 27 per cent of annual salary.
This government, now acting like a reformed drunkard, must have its attention directed to some of its alcoholic excesses during the past three or four years. At the bottom of the same page, there is the following statement:
About 2,400 employees, 25 per cent of the Corporation's work force, received overtime pay ranging from $1,000 to $19,000 during 1967 at a cost to the Corporation of nearly $4.5 million.
One employee received overtime pay in the amount of $19,000. Obviously, this must have been an employee at a very high executive level, in receipt of a very substantial salary, to which must be added overtime of $19,000. We cannot recall the money that has been spent, but we are entitled to examine the situation and apportion the blame so this kind of thing will not happen again. That is true if this House has the authority it should have.
Let me refer to some of the questions of a general nature which should be answered. I have just given illustrations of the more exorbitant and flagrant type of thing that has happened. We are entitled to have information about the investigation in respect of salary rates and termination payments. We should know how much was paid in termination payments and what percentage of employees received such payments. We should also know how many of these already had lined up jobs.
Let me refer specifically to the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year 1966-67, at
DEBATES	601
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation pages 154 and 155. The federal government for example bought a number of bonds which the federal government itself guaranteed. What did this do to the status of the guarantees of the province of Quebec? How much did the federal government spend on Expo securities? These matters are referred to in the Auditor General's report for 1967-68 at page 187. What did the government pay exactly in terms of benefits? Who was eligible for payment and in what way? What was the total cost of foregone tax revenue? Were there any comparable tax concessions from the government of Quebec? What were the tax concessions made in respect of temporary buildings of concessionaires and so on?
As hon. members know there were amendments to certain tax provisions dealing specifically with Expo, and these are questions that must be answered. Why were the auditors unable to verify approximately $101 million out of Expo's $141 million revenue? Was anything given in the way of sales tax concessions? These are reasonable and logical questions to which satisfactory answers should be given.
Although I was tempted to do so, I am not going to move that the committee study of this bill should be postponed until a thorough and proper examination has been made by the Public Accounts committee of the affairs of this corporation. I suggest nothing would be lost if this were done. The standing committee to which the bill will be referred will be engaged in many other matters. I know it will want to deal with certain aspects of the bill itself. The Public Accounts Committee is set up to handle studies of this kind. It should look into this whole situation with the Auditor General and his officials in attendance. They should delve into the questions asked by members of this and other parties in the opposition. These questions should be answered before the winding up is completed.
When this bill is passed the corporation will have been wound up and will be functus officio. It is my respectful submission that it should not be wound up until adequate answers have been supplied. I, therefore, urge the minister who will be replying shortly to give very careful consideration to this suggestion. A lot of questions have been asked. I might feel sorry for the minister were it not for the fact he has escaped from the problems of the Wheat Board and is now faced with the problems of Expo which are, I believe, the lesser of two evils. Surely, he is willing, on behalf of the government and the people of
602	COMMONS
Dissolution of Expo 1967 Corporation Canada, to allow a very careful and thorough financial examination by a committee of this House, I have in mind the public accounts committee. This should take place before this bill is examined by the other committee. In view of the many appeals that have been made, I hope he will agree. If he does agree I think this will have the effect of expediting the passage of this bill. For this reason, it is important that the minister direct his attention to this proposal.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a few questions at this time. I am sure that everyone in Canada is proud of our 1967 Centennial celebration. Certainly not everyone is proud of the inept way in which this exhibition was financed. No one who has had any experience in financing a municipality, province or a government at the federal level could be unaware that estimates have a tendency of increasing over original tenders. However, it is absolutely unreasonable to expect the public of Canada to accept an increase of this kind from $40 million to $285 million.
It would not matter much which part of the nation held Centennial celebrations such as Expo. It would not make much difference whether Expo had been held in Newfoundland, the Maritimes, central Canada, on the prairies, or on the west coast. The same situation might have existed if the supervision of spending had been exercised in the same way.


Jean-Luc Pepin: How do you know?


John Leroy Skoberg: Let me say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I have some questions to ask about Bill C-6. What action does the minister intend to take so far as this bill is concerned? When we read the various provisions, we realize that all the assets are to be transferred to the minister. We should have some assurance from him that if there are any assets worth redeeming they will be subject to public tender.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would be in violation of the law.


John Leroy Skoberg: I agree with the minister when he suggests it is sometimes better to get a dollar here and a dollar there because occasionally it takes a long time to make a dollar by demolition. I presume there will be other assets turned over, and these should be subject to public tender.
Let me refer for a moment to one other aspect of this bill which indicates that all the rights of creditors against the corporation,

DEBATES	November 6, 1969
and all actions pending, are unimpaired by the transfer of these assets to the minister. The bill also provides:
-all subsisting liabilities of the Corporation and actions pending against the Corporation may be enforced or continued against the Minister in like manner-
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
I should like to know whether or not there may be some outstanding liabilities, some outstanding claims against the Corporation, for which we now are assuming responsibility. I should like to know also whether or not the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal could act on behalf of any complainant against the Corporation once this bill is passed. I believe it is most important to realize that we do have in our society today individuals who will deliberately take advantage of a large spending institution such as the federal government. I should like to make sure that the minister will tell the House, and the committee when this matter is referred to it, that whatever the outstanding claims are against the Corporation, neither the province of Quebec nor the city of Montreal will be able to participate in further claims against the federal purse. I believe this is very important if we are to be truthful to the people whom we represent and ensure there is fair play in respect of the over-all financing of this centennial project, in view of the exorbitant increase in the cost of it.
I am sure all of us here would say without hesitation that we hope the fair of 1967, which brought with it a great unity in Canada, can continue. However, it was only through the centennial, and the people and institutions in the various provinces working together, that this unity was brought about. Now that we are spending $125 million to write off the liability of Expo and to wind it up, I suggest we should be looking for better ways to unify Canada. We had unity in 1967 and this could be strengthened if we have the right kind of federal government. I am not sure, however, that this kind of money will accomplish the purpose. It will take a real effort on the part of the information services to bring about the unity of our entire nation.
That is about the extent of what I have to say at this time. Again, I would ask the minister when he replies to assure the House that these are all the liabilities against the Corporation or, if there are others, what they may be. Only then can we intelligently vote on this bill when it comes back to the House.
November 6, 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before recognizing the minister, it is my duty, according to Standing Order, to advise the House that if the minister speaks now he closes the debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief, of course, because I would not want to filibuster my own bill.
I shall say a few words only to point out that during yesterday's and today's discussions we totally agreed on at least two points: first of all, on Expo's considerable success. I had brought a refrigerator almost full of famous quotations from Canadians and foreigners concerning Expo '67. It will not be necessary for me to use them, since hon. members have proved themselves equal to the occasion to point out this great success.
However, I am taking the liberty of reminding the house that usually such a success is relatively expensive in terms of human efforts and money. For a sum of $20 million, you can have what you pay for: a small circus, a regional exhibition. However, to get an international and universal exhibition, you must pay the price. In fact, I was reading in a newspaper, a few days ago, that the Japanese expect their exhibition to cost them $2,300,000,000. It would thus have been rather odd if Canada had been able to manage with only a dozen millions or two. In other words, to have an exhibition which will not be a disappointment, you have to pay the price.
Secondly, total agreement was reached on the advisability of obtaining from the committee the answers to the questions which have been raised and while I rose two or three times to interrupt the speeches of my hon. friends, it was not to deny them the right to direct questions; it was to try and shorten the debate because some of them proved inclined to draw conclusions based on false premises. If I annoyed some hon. members with these interventions, I humbly apologize.
But again I could not but notice that some were a little tempted to arrive at conclusions based on unproved premises. Before finding the corporation or the government guilty, the least one should do is to hear the explanations to be given to the committee beginning tomorrow morning, I hope.
So we shall see among other things why the cost of Expo increased during its four years of preparation and why also benefits have been larger. Further, we shall examine the administration system under which the corpo-
DEBATES	603
Children of War Dead Act ration operated. If it is so desired, we shall look at each of the criticisms made by the Auditor General in his 1967 report. I believe that it is better to study those questions in committee. We shall have plenty of time to analyse them as my hon. friends please.
Mr. Speaker, let me now recommend that the bill be referred to the committee; however, I wish the members of the committee had the following document, that is, the Sixth annual report of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition for the year 1968. With leave, I shall table it now. I shall also have one copy sent to the hon. members of the opposition parties.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, before there is agreement to the tabling of this report, I should like to ask the minister on what date the report should have been tabled.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I really do not know what date it should have been tabled. The only thing I know is that it is being tabled today. Again, as probably happens in these cases, there must have been difficulties of reconciliation. However, I will look at that before tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)

Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved: that Bill C-8, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said:

-Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the House deals with a legislative measure which has been in existence for sixteen years, more precisely since April 13, 1953. At that date, the legislation was received with enthusiasm by all members of all parties. The Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act is based upon two principles closely related: firstly, to allow those young people to complete their
November 6, 1969

Children of War Dead Act education and, secondly, to recognize the special obligation of the state towards the children of Canadian war dead who gave their lives for their country.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canadians can rightly be proud of this legislation. Since it came into effect, many young people who benefited from its provisions later on expressed their gratitude to the Minister and to the Department. Thus, I received a few weeks ago a letter of which I would like to quote an excerpt:
The bill with respect of children of War dead is an excellent legislation; my daughter Linda feels as I do that It is a distinguished tribute to the memory of her father.
Mr. Speaker, the number of recipients clearly indicates that the law is attaining its true objective. Since its enforcement on July 1, 1953, 4,801 orphans of soldiers, veterans or certain special classes of civilians have been in a position to carry on post-secondary studies. Of that number, 2,201 successfully completed their studies, 135 of them during the financial year 1968-1969. In the course of that same year, 330 students were enabled to start their studies through assistance provided under the Act, i.e. 16 more than in the previous year. On March 31, 1969, 899 students were pursuing their studies under this plan throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since 1953, the Act has been amended four times, to make its benefits available to groups of children not covered by the initial Act, to increase the amounts applicable to tuition and other related expenses, and also to increase the amounts of monthly allowances and, in certain special cases, to extend the period over which allowances are payable beyond the 36 months or 4 academic years initially provided.
From 1953 to 1963, beneficiaries included primarily students whose father or mother died or were killed during World War II. During the last six years, they included mostly children of veterans killed in Korea, of deceased members of the regular forces or of deceased World War II pensioners.
All members will agree I am sure, that that piece of legislation has been most useful, not only to those who are directly concerned, but to the general public.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to ask the house to approve two amendments that not only will eliminate certain anomalies but will also give full justice to the students to whom the act applies.

First of all, we want to extend the application of this measure to a group of children, approximately 80 in number at the present time, who receive a pension under section 25 of the Pension Act. As many members know, according to section 25 of the Pension Act, the Canadian Pension Commission is authorized to pay a compassionate pension, an allocation or a supplementary pension in certain worthy cases where the claimant is not otherwise entitled to a pension.
Section 25 is therefore very useful where technical considerations make it impossible to grant a pension in the usual way, that is because of statutory entitlement. For instance, when a veteran dies before the Canadian Pension Commission has been able to decide on the question of eligibility or to assess disability which existed before death, section 25 allows the granting of a pension to his children. Section 25 allows in fact the Commission to conclude from the medical file that it would have declared itself in favour of eligibility had the veteran lived.
Mr. Speaker, I guess it is not the appropriate moment to discuss the technical details of the Pension Act. In fact I was only mentioning a case relating to the first of the two suggested amendments.
I should like to add that the suggested amendment derives from a recommendation of the Woods Commission which suggested that, when a pension is granted on compassionate grounds to a widow, her children who are entitled to pension should be eligible to the educational allowances provided by the Education Assistance Act. Moreover, with this amendment, the children of a widow who does not benefit from a pension, or does not live with them, would be eligible to this assistance.
Mr. Speaker, the second amendment that we shall have to study pertains to section 7 of the Pension Act. It concerns students who fail their examinations and to whom is given the right to try a second examination. At the present time, any student who fails more than one supplementary examination is deprived of any other assistance provided for in section 7. This exclusion results from the standard of success that used to be imposed to student veterans, at the end of World War II. It was in accordance with requirements from colleges, universities and other educational institutions, at the time this legislation was enacted. As a rule, the students were required to give up their studies under the circumstances I have just mentioned. However, these educational institutions, colleges and universities
November 6, 1969	COMMONS
have modified their rules in the last few years, thus creating abnormalities resulting in unfair treatment.
Let us take the ease of two students in the same university or faculty who failed their examinations: one of them failed for lack of a few marks only, while the other one failed by a wider margin. Perhaps the university will offer the first one the privilege of trying supplementary examinations and should he fail several of them, he might be authorized to repeat his year and then proceed normally with his studies. However, he would not be entitled to any financial aid because section 7 forbids subsidizing students who have failed more than one supplementary examination. The second student mentioned, who was barred from the supplementary examination because of lower marks and a poorer general standing, can repeat his year and get his degree. However, under the present legislation, the latter who has failed to a greater extent than the former can obtain financial aid after successful completion of the year that he failed.
Another oddity occurs when two students attending the exact same courses in two different universities fail their examinations. One of those institutions offers supplementary examinations and section 7 of the Act then applies to that student. The other university does not offer supplementary examinations so that the student attending the latter university is not liable to the exclusion provided for by the said section. Those two examples point to an obvious injustice, and we hope these amendments will correct the situation.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members recognize the benefits of the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. Also, I am positive that all members want this Act to be brought in line with current practices being followed in Canadian educational institutions and eligible students to get approximately what their parents would have given them had they lived.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


John Chester MacRae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the minister's statement which I think was an excellent one. It covered this bill very well. The Children of War Dead (Education Assistance), Act, which was introduced in 1953, is perhaps the finest piece of legislation in the entire veterans' charter. In 1946, at the very first national convention of the Canadian 21362-39
DEBATES	605
Children of War Dead Act Legion held following the end of World War II, and which I attended, this matter was discussed. It was again pressed in 1948, 1950 and 1952, and in 1953 the federal government enacted the legislation, mainly in the form in which we presently find it.
One unfortunate thing about the enactment of the legislation was that it was a full eight years after the end of World War II before it became effective. As a result we had examples of older men, perhaps not older in relation to many of us now, who had children getting out of high school in 1945 and 1946, and of other men who were killed, or who died of war wounds and who left children still attending high school. These children were not able to benefit from the act. After the act became effective in 1953 the children of war dead, and of those who subsequently died from their wounds, were protected under the act.
I was interested to hear the minister's figures showing that 4,800 students have benefited under the act, and that over 2,000 students have completed their education. He also pointed out that roughly 900 are presently in schools or attending university. This also includes students attending nursing schools.
The minister's explanation of the clauses in the bill was helpful, but through you, Mr. Speaker, I say to him that it must be in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that this legislation is thoroughly examined, with the assistance of very able departmental officials, especially from the Welfare Department, who will answer our questions. At first reading, clause 2 in particular, amending section 7 of the act, looks highly technical. I have had some discussion with officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs on the bill and as a result I understand exactly what is proposed. However, I am sure many other hon. members would find it difficult to follow.
I can assure hon. members that everything proposed in this bill is good. I only wish we had been able to amend the Act a few years earlier, but for the delay the present minister cannot be held responsible in any way. As I say, the amendments in this bill are excellent.
I was interested to note that the minister pointed out that this is one of the first of the Woods Commission recommendations to come before Parliament in the form of legislation. It is only fitting that our finest piece of veterans' legislation should be the first to be amended. I conclude by saying I feel the members of this party-I cannot speak for all the others, only for myself-the members of

November 6, 1969
Motions for Papers
Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the House of Commons will support the amendments that have been presented, and I congratulate the minister on bringing them forward.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle)-Communications -southern Labrador-request for temporary reinstatement of D.O.T. service; the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Canada Elections Act-suggested vote by mail for disabled persons; the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert)- Navigation-Mackenzie River-inquiry as to agreement with British Columbia.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, Notices of Motions (Papers).


[Stage Direction]
GRANTS TO INDIAN BAND COUNCILS Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of any document prepared in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development entitled, or relating to "Grants to Indian Band Councils" subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15, dated September 18, 1968, which is entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils."
He said: Mr. Speaker, there is a short history relating to the particular document for which production is sought, a short history that I think shows an element of refusal on the part of the government to be totally and completely honest with the general public, and to be open in so far as its activities are concerned with our native Indian people. There has been a confined, narrow, bureaucratic and legislatively fine concept which has permitted the present difficulties to arise. 
In referring to this matter, I must go back to May 28 of this year in the preceding session when a motion, identical in wording, was presented to the House. As recorded at page 9163 of Hansard for that date a response was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) as follows:
On behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would like to inform the hon. member that subsequent to the issuance of circular 15, dated September 18,	1968, entitled
"Grants to Indian Band Councils", no additional documents have been issued.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Under the circumstances would the hon. member from Skeena consent to withdrawing the motion?
I did not so consent, but had the motion transferred for debate. The opportunity to debate it did not arise but I think it is important, apropos of what I said earlier about a deliberate refusal to be completely open with the public about these matters, to point out that the motion made on the 28th of May for the production of that document asked for the production of any document prepared in the department relating to that subject. I think it is important to notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Forest) who has a particularly esteemed and high position within the government, deliberately phrased his response to avoid making reference to the request in the motion for any document that was prepared, but simply talked about any documents that were issued.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, this sort of legalistic nit-picking was deliberately designed to confuse the issue and cover up something within the department. Otherwise, why did the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council ignore the particular request in the motion for any document that was "prepared" and use instead the word "issued", to which no reference was made.
Here, we have exactly the same motion, exactly the same words, but now we have a newly appointed Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Honey). As an aside, I am sure Your Honour will not mind if I wish him well in his appointment. Presumably, if he works well and carefully, he may rise to higher and greater things within the structure of government. I shall be quite happy to cooperate with him in any way in the performance of his duties, but I would probably cause him some difficulties. However, that is
November 6, 1969
[Stage Direction]
the way things happen. In any event, yesterday the Parliamentary Secretary, in response to the motion which I put to the House, said:
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no record of any document prepared-
And here the word "prepared" is used. I think this is the correct approach because that is what I am seeking to obtain, any document prepared by the department. He says the department "has no record of any document prepared subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15 dated September 18, 1968" relating to certain matters.
I would not say this unless I were fairly sure of my ground and I do not mean it unkindly, but knowing how things work within the government, I think it is probable that some one in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development prepares a reply to a motion. The reply is then handed to the unsuspecting minister or parliamentary secretary for presentation to the House. So when the parliamentary secretary stated yesterday that the "Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no record of any document prepared subsequent to the issuance of Circular No. 15" relating to the subject matter contained therein, I think this is a deliberate attempt to maintain an element of secrecy and keep information from the public. It is a deliberate and conscious effort to deny to the Indian people access to a document prepared by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which relates to grants to Indian Band Councils. The government seems content to present to the public, by way of press release, only those things it wants to present and to keep hidden those things it wants to hide. It is more intent upon propagandizing than upon public disclosure.
I cite this development as a preliminary to the argument for the production of this particular document or any document because, as I said earlier, regardless of what the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council said on the 28th May and regardless of what the parliamentary secretary said yesterday about there being no record of any such document, there is in fact a document which can easily be identified and was identified by the motion before us. The identification of the document in the motion before us was extracted from the document in question. Lest there be any doubt, I have in my hand this document which does not exist, of which the Department of Indian Affairs 21362-39^
Motions for Papers
and Northern Development has no record; this document which the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council skirted around on May 28th.
The document is on a piece of paper which has right at the top, in the English language so that it is properly identified, "Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development", the very department about which we are talking. The French version is underneath that. There is the coat of arms with "Canada" underneath it and a place along the right hand side for the file number or "dossier". Then, there is the subject, and let me quote that, Mr. Speaker: "Grants to Indian Bands Councils".
What I am seeking to obtain is any document prepared subsequent to the issuance of Circular 15 dated September 18 entitled "Grants to Indian Bands Councils". This document is entitled, "Grants to Indian Bands Councils". It is on paper which has on it the name of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and there is a bunch of numbers down at the bottom to identify some kind of form used within the department. There is on it a date which is not legible but which is 1969, a date which would then be subsequent to September 18, 1968. It goes into more detail, Mr. Speaker, about the subject matter of grants to Indian Band Councils. The document contains eight pages of formulae, statistical information, tabular material and a report on the subject contained therein.
If the massive and highly efficient Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no record of such a document, I would be quite happy to make mine available so that they would have a record of it. I would be quite happy to table the document, and make it available. Mr. Speaker, this is not something upon which the foundation of the state rests; it is not something within the Department of National Defence which is highly confidential; it is not any secret document from the Department of External Affairs concerning our relationship with other countries; it is not from the files of the R.C.M.P. who are involved in secret activities. This is a simple, ordinary document from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, prepared within that department, distributed to every Indian agency in Canada, distributed to quite a number of chiefs of Indian Band Councils, and distributed to regional directors within the Indian Affairs Branch.
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1969
Motions for Papers
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Surely, a document like this would be prepared within the department. Judging from the paper it was written on, it was, and is widely circulated within the department. Surely, departmental officials must have some record of it. I submit that they either have some record of it, or that somebody is deliberately misleading us by saying there is no record of it. If that is the case, and I cannot believe that is true, then departmental officials are even more incompetent and inefficient than some would suggest. If there is no record of the document I shall be very glad to make my copy available to the department. I will not give it to the Parliamentary Secretary because he is not really involved in this matter, having been caught in the bureaucratic workings of government. He is more of a spokesman in this situation and has probably been grossly misled. But I am certainly prepared to make the document available to the public and to parliament, and I hope I may be allowed to table the document so that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can no longer hide behind the excuse that there is no record of it. May I ask for the consent of the House to table this document?
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the hon. member is in order in asking that his copy of the document be tabled. If my hon. friend consents, what I should like to do is complete my remarks, and then see whether there is a consensus for one or other of us to table some documents.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
have found the document, then?


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has been very congenial in his remarks but has been somewhat critical of departmental officials. I think perhaps he may have overstated the case. I ask him to read again the notices of motion prepared for the previous session of parliament and for the present session of parliament. Does he think that the officials of the department or anyone else, for that matter, could reasonably identify from the wording of the motions the particular document he has in mind? I have been able to identify the document after listening to the hon. member's remarks this afternoon. I suspect, however, that without his assistance in this debate it would have been quite difficult or almost impossible to sort out his

document from the several hundred memoranda which each year emanate from the department to regional directors, chiefs of Indian bands, and so on, on the question of consultation between the minister and his officials and the Indians of Canada. If I have correctly identified the document, it is only because the hon. member has been of assistance this afternoon. It would have been very difficult to identify it from his notice of motion.
I think the document we are speaking about is the memorandum that was prepared to be circulated to regional directors of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, chiefs of Indian band councils and superintendents of Indian agencies, with a view to obtaining the views of the Indians of Canada, through their bands and in consultation and discussion with officials of the department, on certain modifications that were proposed with respect to grants to Indian band councils. A cursory reading of the document will reveal that it was not intended to be a final document. Its purpose was only to provide a basis of consultation with the Indian peoples. I think it might be helpful if I were to note two or three items in the covering letter which accompanied this particular memorandum to regional directors and to others to whom it was circulated. This letter is from the then director of the department, Mr. David A. Munro, and I wish to quote two or three extracts from this letter. Mr. Munro said in part:
You will recall that the Grants to Bands Program was discussed during the Regional Directors' Conference last December. I indicated to you that as soon as modifications to the existing program as requested by the Indian people could be embodied in the new proposal it would be referred to you to ensure that the Indians in your Region would be given the opportunity to give us their views on the modified formula.
The letter goes on to say:
There are herewith ...
A proposal on the Grants to Bands Program, embodying certain changes intended to meet the wishes of Indians to be used by you-
Meaning, by the Regional Director. I continue:
-as a basis for discussion with them.
Copies of Blue Circulars 4, 9, 13 and 15, which will be rescinded and replaced by a new circular after an agreement has been reached on the modified program.
It is apparent from the covering letter and the document itself that this was only the basis of consultation. There was to be a reporting back to the minister and his officials
November 6, 19G9

in Ottawa, and the reactions of Indians throughout Canada would be considered. Then the minister, in consultation with his officials, would decide whether the particular modifications could be adopted on the basis of reports received from the Indian peoples of Canada. The last paragraph of the letter which, 1 repeat, was sent to regional directors across the country, reads:
Would you, therefore, by February 21st, please supply me with a statement of the reaction of Indians to the proposals contained in the draft circular attached, together with a clear statement of the manner in which you have consulted with them.
Clearly, if my hon. friend and I are speaking of the same document, and I think we are, the document was widely circulated. As I have said, it was sent to the regional directors and chiefs of Indian band councils, and was made available to all Indians through their band councils. There is nothing privileged about the document; it is not classified. Since the hon. member for Skeena has been so helpful in identifying the document, perhaps I might be allowed to table it in the House.
Before sitting down may I thank my hon. friend for helping to describe the document. He has been most helpful. Although his criticism may have been fair, and I concede that Members of Parliament have a responsibility in these matters, his criticism of departmental officials might have been more valid if he had taken a bit more care in drafting the notice of motion. Then, the particular document or memorandum he wanted might have been identified from among the hundreds of memoranda on the subject that are sent, and continue to be sent, to regional directors. These documents are meant to be a basis for consultation with Indians in their particular areas.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Having said that, and if it is in order, I wish to table the document referred to by the hon. member for Skeena and to which I have been referring. I need not describe it further because it has already been described in the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena. This document is issued by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is entitled "Grants to Indian Band Councils". It is on the basis of this memorandum that discussions were to be held with the Indian people in connection with certain proposed modifications to the Indian Band Council grants program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder why there is any question
Children of War Dead Act about getting consent to table a document. Surely, all that is necessary is for the motion to be passed. I might also say, Mr. Speaker, I am impressed with the argument of my colleague. The definition in his motion certainly fits the document, at least the copy I now have in my hand. At any rate this is one of those mysteries that it is nice to see cleared up. Perhaps the motion could be put and it might even be passed unanimously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Now that the motion has carried, I wish to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The motion which we have just passed orders the issuance and production of a copy of any document prepared in the department, identified in the way this was. That does not necessarily restrict it to the particular document to which the hon. parliamentary secretary (Mr. Honey) and I have been referring. There are many more. I think it is now incumbent upon the government to search its records and produce all documents. This was the intent of the motion.


Mr. Pilon:: Mr. Speaker, I think we have reached agreement that we now adjourn until eight o'clock.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At 5.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 pun.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Dube that Bill C-8, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
610	COMMONS
Children of War Dead Act
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the remarks made by the minister in introducing second reading of this bill. I am also gratified at the number of people who have received support under this act. The amendments to the act throw no light on what the act has done for children of war dead, but I think it is safe to say that under this legislation, as under other veterans legislation concerned with the education of veterans and the children of veterans, we have more for our money than is the case with most pieces of legislation passed by Parliament.
I think it is also true to say that no educational assistance provided under veterans affairs legislation has been more productive than the act we are now discussing. For example, take the case of a woman whose husband returned from overseas badly wounded and later died, leaving several small children. I suspect that those children's chances of going on to higher education on the amount of money the widow would receive under other pension legislation would be non-existent were it not for this particular act. As I say, the dollar value received for the money spent under this legislation has been exceedingly good.
I am pleased that in these amendments the minister has taken into consideration two matters that have radically changed in approach over the years. One concerns age requirement. An opportunity is being afforded children to attend school for longer than has been the case in the past. This provision is in keeping with modern times and is a change well worth making. The other matter relates to the person who is weak in a particular subject and it has cost him his year. There is a growing body of opinion that it is one's over-all educational qualifications that are important, and so long as one has a reasonable awareness of all subjects a student should be allowed to proceed to a higher education level and carry his one weak subject. Prior to these amendments such a person would not have qualified for assistance.
I suggest the minister could also have considered assisting education in institutions other than universities. I include courses of instruction at technical colleges. Many of our high schools are now offering courses in technical subjects, and a great deal of emphasis is put on taking full advantage of the natural ability of students in the field for which they are best equipped. Many of these students have yet to complete even their elementary
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard) .1
DEBATES	November 6, 1969
education. In many cases where education is sought in the technical field beyond high school level assistance is not now available. I think the minister could have considered providing some assistance in these cases as well.
It is true that when this act was originally passed in 1953 the need was for assistance at the university level. Technical education in most provinces had not advanced to the level where it offered a major opportunity to most students. But today attendance at technical school beyond the elementary level of education costs just as much as for attending university, with the probable exception of the tuition fee. I suggest the minister could have put forward an amendment to assist a large segment of the population to take advantage of technical education in every province in Canada.
Neither of the amendments proposed by the minister offer assistance of this kind. I am sure most members feel that since this legislation is offering assistance to children of war dead, it is obviously coming to the end of its life. Today the child of a father killed overseas during the last war would be about 27 years old and with respect to him the provisions of the act are self-liquidating. However, since numbers of children will now qualify under the act because they are in receipt of a compassionate pension under the Pension Act, the need for this legislation will remain for some time.
o (8:10 p.m.)
I suggest that the minister consider an additional amendment to provide assistance in respect of students at less than secondary school level. This would allow students to attain higher educational standards in certain fields, including university degree courses following a number of years in an academic field. It would be a very serious amendment, but such a provision would be in keeping with changes now taking place in our educational institutions. This matter has been drawn to the minister's attention. I am sure he will give consideration to it.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated because I thought other hon. members would want to make some remarks about this bill. I want to take the opportunity to draw the minister's attention in a public way to something about which I have had correspondence with him. The minister has on four occasions said that the act has been changed
November 6, 1969	COMMONS
to expand facilities and to extend the assistance offered to groups which were heretofore excluded. There is still a deficiency within the act and its regulations; there is a disparity which is not corrected by the amendments now before us. The disparity occurs in respect of children now coming under the Pension Commission and children who receive benefits under Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act.
I have in mind those children who come within the ambit of the provisions of this act and attend institutions of higher learning than secondary schools. They do not receive assistance if the educational institution they attend does not have a requirement for a secondary school graduation certificate. In other words, if a student intends going to a university or college which requires a secondary school graduation certificate, he can receive assistance under the act. If a student wishes to attend an educational institution- say of a technical or vocational nature-other than a university, which might not have an entrance requirement including a certificate of graduation from a secondary school, assistance is not available.
I have exchanged correspondence with the minister in this regard. Let me put on the record part of what the minister said to me in a letter dated September 25 following representations made to him. In one paragraph of the letter he said:
-facilities for technological training and the broadening of the occupational fields in which such training is given can quite properly, I think, be described as remarkable in the past decade.
I take it that this program has expanded in the past few years partly because of a recommendation to extend facilities and partly because of assistance to technical training schools and the like. The minister indicates that the growth has continued. I should like to read one sentence of his letter which I think does not fit in with the rest of it. It does not match the concept of the act or the expectation of the minister in relation to the benefits that should be available to students. He stated:
The majority of these newly developed courses require secondary school graduation as an entry condition, and it would be a retrogressive step to establish a lower criterion for the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act at this time.
Apparently the majority of them require a secondary school graduation certificate as a condition of entry. The great bulk of technical educational facilities available to persons with a grade 10 standard obviously do not
DEBATES	611
Children of War Dead Act require secondary school graduation certificates. In any event, the minister goes on to say that it would be a retrogressive step to establish a lower criterion for these children under the act. It seems that if we expand the benefits available under this act to an additional group of students, that would not be a retrogressive step. Any time we can provide assistance or a helping hand to students, we are progressing. Surely this is not a retrogressive step. The minister has confused the two concepts.
It was my hope that between the time of that exchange of correspondence and the presentation of this bill to Parliament the minister would have looked into the situation and made some changes. Perhaps it is necessary to do this by way of legislation, but some provision should be made to extend the benefits available under the act to students who are embarking upon a course of higher education in institutions that do not call for a secondary school certificate as an entry requirement. Perhaps the minister can do this by way of regulation. If it is necessary to do it by ministerial edict, I hope he will consider doing so. Perhaps it can be done by order in council. In any event, I make a plea to the minister to take the step, which is certainly not a retrogressive step, to expand the benefits of the act to this larger group of students.
The minister read a letter about this matter, extolling the virtues of his action. That is all well and good. Perhaps he will not complain about my referring to a letter which points out another awkward situation. It relates to a particular individual and a particular situation. I do not intend to mention the name of the person or the family involved. I should like to quote from this letter without reference to the individual. I do not think one need involve specific people under these circumstances. The letter was addressed to the mother of the student concerned. It is dated September 9 this year, just a couple of months ago. At that time the minister was undoubtedly considering this bill or had prepared it for presentation. The letter was written by the area supervisor for welfare, the Department of Veterans Affairs, Vancouver. The text of the letter is as follows:
As per your recent correspondence where you state that-
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
It gives here the name of the young girl.
-is now attending Columbia Junior College-
November 6. 1969

Children of War Dead Act
Listen to this, Mr. Minister, because it indicates the perseverance of this young student.
-and taking two Grade 12 subjects and her first year university-
There are the two things. She does not have secondary school graduation. She is taking first year university and at the same time is taking Grade 12 subjects. She is proceeding with both at the same time in order to advance herself in the educational field. The letter continues:
-it is unfortunate that I have to point out that assistance under EAA-
I take it that means educational assistance act.
-does not apply until the student has successfully completed Grade 12. So it now appears that we are in a position where we cannot assist until-
Then it gives the name of the young lady.
*-has completed the two subjects she is presently taking. On completion of these two courses, I would assume this to be in June of 1970, we will be in a position to assist in her nursing training.
I say this is an anomalous situation. It is probably a situation which had not been conceived when the act was developed and amended from time to time. This may be the first case, but it is one case in point of a young girl who is desirous of pursuing a higher level of education to become something better than she is at the moment. From personal knowledge I know that this girl has spent a great many hours on homework and on work at school in order to proceed through school in this way. Unfortunately she does not fall within the narrow legal framework of the act and its regulations.
I cite this as an additional example of a situation with which I am sure the minister is sympathetic. I am quite sure no one would object to the concept that this young lady should have available to her the benefits available under the act. Her mother, with the pension accruing to her, is not in a position to provide for the advancement of this young girl through school. There may be other children in a similar situation. In fact, another mother wrote to me. I shall not quote that letter except to say it was written by a widowed mother with a feeling of despair and anguish because of the difficulty she was facing in trying to raise her children and get them through school. She was up against a situation where if the circumstances had been slightly different there would have been this additional benefit available to her both in respect of the children proceeding through Grade 12 and into first year of university. In

both cases the assistance was not available because the person did not fall under the ambit of the Children of War Dead (Educational Assistance) Act but rather came under the ambit of the Pension Act.
I am sure it is not the desire of the minister or of the government to make these decisions on an extremely narrow legalistic and interpretive basis. I am sure it is the desire of the minister to be expansive and deal with situations from a moral point of view. I do not know whether this requires legislative action or whether it can be done by regulatory action or decision on the part of the minister, but I would ask the minister seriously to take this matter under his sanction and expand even further the facilities available under the act. Contrary to what the minister said in his letter, it is not a retrogressive step when we make available to needy students the assistance which generally is available under the act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube).


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I have to inform the House that if the hon. minister speaks at this time he will close the debate.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae) for his support and that of his party which he has offered in respect of this bill. Of course, I agree with him that this small bill is in fact one of the finest pieces of legislation arising from the veterans' charter. I also agree with him that there are some technical points which need to be clarified. This we will endeavour to do in committee. I wish also to thank the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) for the remarks he has made. I agree with him that we are receiving more value for our money from this legislation dealing with education than from most other bills of a similar nature. The hon. member for Timiskaming would like us to reduce the qualifications and not insist on high school education for training under this legislation. That is something we will have to discuss at greater length, but at the present time I would make a few remarks which apply to what the hon.
November 6, 19G9

member and the hon. member tor Skeena (Mr. Howard) said.
First of all, high school education is free in most provinces, so there is no necessity to include in this bill a reference to high school education. I should also say that most technological schools today do insist on high school graduation as a condition of entrance. I do not have with me the full list of all the new schools in the country, but we will attempt to provide this to the committee. In summing up I should say that the purpose is not at all to try to limit the number of children who would qualify under the act. The purpose of the act is to be very generous and to make sure that the greatest possible number of students are admitted to the best possible schools and universities. We will attempt to achieve this purpose. If hon. members can convince us that we could be more generous and more liberal by dropping out the high school qualification, we will look into it. However, from the information I have and the advice I have received, this seems to be the best deal we can have at the present time. In any event, I wish to thank hon., members of the opposition for the support they have given this bill. We will discuss the technicalities and further improve it in due course.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, may I address a brief question to the minister? As one who has had a very sincere interest in Section 25 of the Pension Act, and as one who presented a brief to the Woods Commission on this specific point, may I ask the minister whether he has under serious consideration a review of the very rigid requirements of this act, and possibly new legislation? I appreciate that this question deals with only the educational part of that section. But does the minister agree that this compassionate section 25 of the Pension Act is very important? Is he looking at it seriously, and is he hopeful that it may be possible in the future to ensure, by way of new legislation, that the requirements of the section are not so rigid?
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Thomas Miller Bell: All I am asking for, Mr. Speaker, is an indication of interest from the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. At present we are studying a special bill, Bill C-8, an act to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act. Is it
Judges Act
the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


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


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill C-2, to amend the Judges Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate you for taking the Chair again in this session of Parliament. Through you may I send my commendations to Mr. Speaker and the Deputy Speaker together with my best wishes as they preside over the chamber during this session.
Bill C-2 is adequately described in the explanatory note. However, I will say very briefly that authority is sought from Parliament for the provision of salaries for eight additional judges; two judges of the Supreme Court of Alberta, five judges of the county and district courts of Ontario and one judge of the district court of Alberta. I should like to mention for the information of the House that the number of judicial offices for the district court of Alberta was increased by way of provincial order in council. The order in council was passed by the government of Alberta, providing for an additional district judge of the southern part of Alberta, on February 11, 1969. The provision for increasing the number of judicial offices of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta was made in a statute of that province which received royal assent on April 21 of this year. As I said, provision is also made in this bill for increasing by five the number of judicial offices in the county and district courts of Ontario, four for the county of York and one for the county of Carleton. The Ontario legislature provided for these additional judicial offices by a statute of the legislature which received royal assent on March 26 of this year.
From discussions I have had with my provincial counterparts, the attorneys general of Alberta and Ontario, concerning the administration of justice in those provinces and based on the information that I receive from time to
614

November 6, 1969
Judges Act
time from the legal profession and from the public generally, I am satisfied that these increases are warranted. They are necessary to deal effectively with the additional volume of judicial business and litigation in those provinces that must be transacted in the public interest. I am satisfied, therefore, that Parliament would be justified in authorizing an increase in the provisions for the salaries of these judges.
In recent times I have received submissions from the Canadian Bar Association and from other quarters indicating that in the opinion of the bar it is time we began to think about further changes in the Judges Act. This bill is a simple one again this year. It provides for an increased number of judges, but the time will come very soon-I think by the next session of Parliament-when we should think seriously about fundamental amendments to the Judges Act.
The question of salaries is one which we shall have to consider. I felt that it was not appropriate this year to come before Parliament and ask for any increase in the salaries of judges in the country. But I say frankly to Parliament that it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to persuade some of the leading candidates for judicial office, particularly lawyers who have had experience before the courts, younger men between 40 and 50 years of age who could make a great contribution to the bench and thereby to the administration of justice, to accept judicial office.


William Arnold Peters: Or parliamentary office for that matter.


John Napier Turner: I will take that as read. Those men between 40 and 50 have children who are usually at the high school or university stage, and are therefore at their maximum financial exposure in those years. When one considers that the current provisions for widows and dependent children are ludicrously low, it is often very difficult to persuade them to accept the office. The widow's pension is two-ninths of two-thirds of the judge's salary, and many women are now living close to penury. However, as I said, I felt that this year was not the proper time to broach the subject. But I say to the House that we will be looking very seriously into the matter of salaries, pensions and expenses during the coming year because I think it is important that we attract the best men and women we can to serve on the bench in Canada. In order to do that one has to offer remuneration that is at least somewhat competitive with what they might otherwise 
receive. There are a few matters that I would like to mention briefly for the purpose of informing the House about a number of initiatives that we have taken during the last year with respect to the judiciary.

First, I should mention that we have set up language courses for judges. I must inform the House that, between July 20 and August 8, a series of classes was given successfully in the capital city of Quebec for 24 judges of the provincial Superior Courts.
I am glad to mention, Mr. Speaker, that judges from seven out of ten provinces attended these classes. The courses were given by the federal school of languages. These are preliminary courses of necessity and these judges as well as those from the federal courts will be able to attend French classes in their own district and if they take an immersion course in a school of languages, I think that they will be able to improve their ability to speak or at least to understand the other language.
Bilingual facilities will also be available to French-speaking judges of the Superior Courts and we are confident that our program for French-speaking and English-speaking judges will be made available to all members of the judiciary.
In the near future we hope to be in a position to make these courses available to all district and county judges. Obviously, these courses have to be organized so as not to affect the proper administration of justice. Therefore, a schedule of classes has to be arranged with the co-operation of the chief justices of the country.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)

I also wish to say something about the Canadian Judicial Conference which was held for the first time this past summer in the city of Toronto. We sent the judges back to school. I might say that this was done with the full, enthusiastic co-operation of the Chief Justices of the country. The course was sponsored by the federal government. It was established by the Conference of Chief Justices of Canada. The council of the conference is composed of Chief Justice Gale of Ontario as chairman, with Associate Chief Justice Challies of Quebec as vice-chairman. The balance of the council is composed of Chief Justice Smith of Alberta, Chief Justice Culliton of Saskatchewan and Chief Justice Cowan of Nova Scotia. This council convened the first seminar which
November 6, 19G9



began on August 14 in the city of Toronto. It lasted for an entire week and 24 judges from all parts of Canada attended.
1 was particularly glad that Mr. Justice William Morrow, territorial judge of the Northwest Territories, was among these 24 judges. I would hope that because of the remoteness of his particular circuit he would be able to attend these courses at least every second year in order that he could be brought into contact with his brother judges across the country who have more opportunity to converse with each and keep abreast of the law. In fact, he made such an impression upon his brother judges that they have asked him to join the faculty of the seminar next year. I would suggest that Mr. Justice Henry Madison of the Yukon be invited to attend these seminars on alternate years. I understand that the seminar will be an annual event sponsored by the Council of Chief Justices.
I would like to read into the record the faculty for the seminar this year which consisted of the following persons: Chief Justice Tremblay of Montreal, Chief Justice Challies of Montreal, Chief Justice Cowan of Halifax, Mr. Justice Laskin of Toronto, Mr. Justice Hartt of Toronto, Mr. Justice McFarlane of Vancouver, Mr. Justice Brooke of Toronto, Dean G. E. LeDain, Q.C., of Toronto, Professor John Edwards of Toronto, Professor D. Mendes da Costa of Toronto, and the Dean was H. Allan Leal, Q.C., of Toronto.
I wish to thank publicly the members of the faculty for participating in what I think is a very useful initiative in Canadian judicial practice. It is my information, not only from the council but from the judges who attended the seminar, that they all benefited individually from the course. One of their particularly lively discussions concerned public relations, and I understand they had a stimulating discussion with Mr. Jack Dennett and Mr. Ray Corelli, two well known representatives of the newspaper world in the city of Toronto.
Among the subjects discussed at the seminar were criminal law and procedure, divorce, evidence, administrative bodies, the preparation and writing of judgments, judicial behaviour and recent trends in the law of contract and tort. I would hope we could reach a stage where once every five years every high court judge in the country would be able to go back to school to continue his legal training, not just for a period of one week but for, say, three weeks, and that subjects that are of social concern and subjects 21362-401
Judges Act
of current human confrontation before the courts would be researched.
I believe that the Canadian Judicial Conference inaugurated last year fills a very definite void that has existed in this country for a great many years in the area of judicial training. We are trying to improve our law schools and make their curricula more relevant. We are trying to inaugurate courses in consumer law, courses on law as it affects the poor, on law to protect the debtor as well as the creditor, the borrower as well as the lender. I believe that the legal profession in certain parts of the country is becoming alive to its responsibilities as a profession and is recognizing that society as a whole is the client of the law. I am delighted to see that the judges of this country are becoming more responsive to the new urges for change under the law. The Canadian Judicial Conference will serve as a refresher course for those who have sat on the bench for some time.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask how many judges outside the province of Ontario attended this course?


John Napier Turner: Twentyfour, minus five, would be 19.


Jack Marshall: Outside Ontario?


John Napier Turner: Yes.


Jack Marshall: You did not indicate that.


John Napier Turner: We started this in a limited way, but as I have said I hope we will expand it so that every judge in the country gets this refresher course once every five years. I think this is important because I think the judges, and the bench as a whole, must realize that in an era where there is a crisis of legitimacy, of authority, there is no institution in this country that is immune from criticism, and the bench must also respond to these urges for change and social responsibility. The seminar will be held in the city of Montreal next year and a completely different group of judges will attend on that occasion.
I should also mention that the annual conference of the Chief Justices of Canada met in Edmonton this year on September 28, 29 and 30. This conference is now well established and a decision was taken at this year's meeting to convene next year's meeting in Newfoundland. This conference enables all the Chief Justices to meet to discuss problems that are common to them in relation to the administration of justice. They find that they

November 6, 1969
Judges Act
are able to assist one another greatly by their free exchange of ideas. They are able to carry back to their own respective benches various suggestions relating to procedures and administration, and interpretations of the law, that have considerable value to all members of the bench.
I should like at this time to make a brief reference to the question of judicial appointments. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I went into this matter rather fully last year. We have continued the practice of consulting, prior to recommending appointments to the bench, the Judicial Committee of the Canadian Bar Association. Aside from that, I consult the members of the provincial bars concerned and sometimes members of the bench who have the opportunity of judging who are the competent counsel appearing before them. We consult as widely as we can in the community. But I want to add that of course the final responsibility for making a recommendation to the Governor in Council remains mine. I do not intend to shirk that responsibility or delegate it to any other body. I believe that I should take the heat in the legislature for the appointments whether they are good or bad. I might say that no candidate for the bench whom the committee of the Canadian Bar Association judged not qualified received an appointment to the bench since my appointment to this portfolio. In other words only those whom the bar committee judged to be qualified received nomination and appointment.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, I am sure hon. members will recall that for the first time in the history of this country a lady was appointed to one of the high courts in Canada, the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec. Madame Rejeanne Colas is an outstanding woman. She graduated top of her class at the law school of the University of Montreal in 1952 and practised law for 16 or 17 years before appointment to the bench. She has three children, was president of Les Clubs Feminins de la Province de Quebec, and chairman of the Canadian Bar Association Committee on Family Law. She has made an outstanding contribution to the bench in the six months since her appointment, particularly with reference to interpretation of the new Divorce Act.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to mention the Supreme Court and Exchequer Court in relation to the Official Languages Act. Members of the House will recall that sections 5 and 11 of this act impose obligations upon the

federal judiciary. I have taken appropriate steps to see that arrangements are made to meet the requirements in section 5 to permit simultaneous translation in the Supreme Court and Exchequer Court. Both languages have enjoyed equal rights before the federal courts of this country but the additional requirements in sections 5 and 11 make some adjustments necessary. I am informed that these are well in hand. I have also been considering the usefulness of certain regulations on judicial proceedings which might be made by order in council under section 11 (5) of the Official Languages Act in order to facilitate the application of section 11 (2) respecting simultaneous translation. These rules, if made, would apply to all courts of record established pursuant to an act of the Parliament of Canada as well as to the Supreme Court and Exchequer Court.
There are also courts in the Yukon and Northwest Territories to be considered. I have caused enquiries to be made as to what arrangements will be necessary for them in order to meet the exigencies of the Official Languages Act. Here, too, the matter seems to be well in hand. We have arranged to appoint Mr. Justice Dechene of the Alberta Supreme Court a deputy judge for the Northwest Territories, and we are attempting to provide court staff so that it will be possible to have proceedings in the French language where necessary without obligatory recourse to simultaneous translation in the French language. It is not yet settled whether similar arrangements will have to be made in the Yukon Territory. However, translation of the judgements of both these courts will be made available as well as facilities for simultaneous translation where required.
Mr. Speaker, that is a small report to the shareholders in the country through their representatives in this House in so far as the judiciary under the authority of the federal government is concerned. But the administration of justice is wider than that, and sometimes I find it restricting and even frustrating that the daffy operation of the courts falls within provincial jurisdiction in both criminal and civil matters. Whereas all criminal law in statute form rests with Parliament, prosecution under the Criminal Code is the responsibility of the provincial attorneys general. But there are problems within the administration of justice that, while provincial in content, are so national in scope that sometimes I find it necessary to communicate with the several attorneys general. Indeed, when they were here at the beginning of the week discussing
November 6, 1969

the Charter of Human Rights we considered the possibility of convening a meeting of all attorneys general federal and provincial to deal with national problems relating to the administration of justice.
I am concerned about the delays in our courts, whether the responsibility lies with the judiciary, or the bar, lawyers who amongst themselves conveniently arrange to postpone cases. In the Department of Justice in Ottawa we are exploring the uses of the computer in the land. I think it could be used a great deal in promoting the administration of justice at the provincial level. In order to set to rest the fears of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) let me say that we do not intend to replace lawyers, we just intend to explore some improvements. I am convinced that if justice in the city of Toronto or Montreal were put to a computer for the purpose of ascertaining who is responsible for the delay in our courts, the answer might be the same as that found in Philadelphia where delays were traced to just one or two law firms who were digesting too much business. But I do think we should pinpoint the responsibility for the delays.
We must consider the effectiveness of right to counsel. We must also consider the very serious problem which is building up with respect to the Divorce Act. Dissolving a marriage does not solve the problems of maintenance, alimony and custody of children. These matters often have to be decided by separate courts in the same jurisdiction and it is not unusual to have the same matrimonial situation simultaneously before two or three courts. All the legal consequences of divorce and marriage should somehow be co-ordinated better than they are at present.
Mr. Speaker, these are some of the matters relating to the administration of justice and the appointment of judges which fall within the general scope of this bill. In any event, my brother attorneys general are agreeable to a conference and I hope we can hold it late in the spring. I thank the House very much for its attention.


Gerald William Baldwin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did not really intend to participate in this debate-


William Arnold Peters: I did not know it was going to be so extensive


Gerald William Baldwin: I have the keen attention of my friends to the left who are already evincing an interest in what I am going to say before I even say it. The distinguished and
Judges Act
learned critic for this party is at present engaged in examining other legislation which the minister will be presenting to the House leader, and this has catapulted me into making a speech. I was glad to hear the minister engage in a rather extracurricular discussion-no one is objecting to it-but the question of the appointment of judges should not be any bar to the minister, to members of the opposition or backbenchers on the government side dealing with this matter in some detail.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who has seen on television or read in the press in the past year of the riots and violence which have taken place throughout the western world will have wondered whether the courts are going to have a place in society as we know it. Is there a place for those delegated by society to the decision-making process in the judiciary to determine the rights of the parties, having in mind the stresses of modern times? Is there a real place for a man learned in the law to calmly and dispassionately make a decision in disputes arising between citizens or between citizens and the state? To some of us this would not appear necessary. People have taken to the streets. The demonstration which has sometimes become violent has counter-balanced the machinery our society has established for dealing with such problems. I was glad to hear the minister give some indication of his thinking in this regard. It was not the government's thinking, but his own. His remarks gave us an insight and will enable us to judge what we may look forward to in this regard in the next year or two.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We must appoint to the judiciary people who are not only learned in the law but are knowledgeable about society and the frailties of human nature. The men we appoint must be those who can sit on a dais and weigh, evaluate and assess the conflicts between human beings and the differences between them. They will listen to people who challenge the rights of governments and the rights of big corporations. I think no society will remain free and good unless we evolve methods of selecting people of this kind for judicial appointment.
May I digress and say that I have sometimes heard in different parts of Canada and in this House the suggestion that those who serve in the public life of this country, our politicians in other words, should not be made judges. I disagree with that. I am not saying that one's participation in public life by itself

November 6, 1969
Judges Act
is a mark of distinction and should automatically mean that one may be elevated to the bench. Men in public life have often been elevated. I submit that men in public life gain an insight into human nature, and a politician has that faculty. The man who has sat on the opposition benches and had to contend with the monolithic apparatus of government makes a very good judge-and please do not think I am preaching for a call, Mr. Speaker. It is bad enough for one to have to sit here and to listen to some of the speeches. At least we can walk out occasionally, but unfortunately judges cannot do that and are compelled to stay and listen to what is being said.
I make this comment only because I have heard it repeated frequently in this House during the last 10 or 15 years that the man in public life, even though he may have all the other necessary qualifications, should not be elevated to the bench. I disagree with that. In making judicial appointments we recognize that the government of the day will, all things being equal, probably appoint its supporters to the bench. I do not quarrel with that, provided the appointees have all other necessary qualifications. I have discussed this matter with the minister from time to time and will continue to do so as objectively as I can.
If society as we know it is to endure, we must have a free Parliament and a free, independent, very learned and knowledgeable judiciary. Any minister of justice attempting to acquire for the bench of this country people of that character will have my support. While it is very nice to have bilingual judges, if the government must choose between two men, let it choose the good judge. If the judges appointed are bilingual, so much the better. But if you have a man who speaks French and no English and he would make a good judge, I say that you should by all means appoint him. Similarly, if you have a lawyer who speaks English but not too much French and he would make a good judge, by all means appoint him. If you can find a man who speaks both languages, that is fine.
In my experience of the past 40 years I have never come across a case-and I was substantially involved in counsel work- where a person charged with an offence or involved in civil proceedings was unable to secure from the court, upon request, the fullest opportunity to have made available to him in the language of his choice all statements nnd evidence given before the court. In all

instances persons are made fully aware of what is taking place. As this country progresses we may reach the stage where all those appointed to the judiciary will be bilingual, although I think it may be many years before that happens. I urge the minister to exercise the utmost caution in his appointments and not let his desire to appoint a bilingual judge interfere with his need to appoint a good judge.
How judges behave is very important. I recall that as a young law student I appeared in a case-I was not appearing on my own but had a watching brief-involving a woman who was charged with being the keeper of a bawdy house. Something turned upon whether the particular house had stairs at the back, and a lengthy examination was conducted on this point. Finally the judge turned to counsel and said, "Surely you can tell the court whether the stairs are in fact there." The accused woman turned and said to the judge, "But Your Lordship was there last night. You should know that."
Next I wish to speak about our divorce courts. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was Minister of Justice many of us in the House said that jurisdiction to try divorces should not be restricted to Supreme Court judges and that the backlog of human misery which had been built up over the course of years would create many judicial problems. Some provinces take the position that certain leading cases give their county judges jurisdiction to try divorces. I think it would have been better if Parliament had made a unilateral declaration that county and Supreme Court judges can try divorce cases. May I repeat what I have said before. I see no reason for the present distinction between judges. I think we pay Supreme Court judges $26,000 a year, and county and district court judges $19,000 a year. Can you measure the value of justice by the amount you pay a member of the bar?
For a great many years, both as a member of the bar and as a bencher of the Law Society of Alberta, as well as a Member of Parliament, I said that this distinction should be abolished. If the Government of Canada acting on instructions from the Parliament of Canada has the right to appoint judges to courts of record, why should it say, "You, John Brown, with your knowledge and capacity are limited to trying civil cases not involving more than so many thousands of dollars and criminal cases of certain types. But you, Bill Smith, have complete jurisdiction over everything." Justice should not be
November 6, 1969

valued in those terms. I urge the minister to consider abolishing the distinction between county and Supreme Court judges. If a member of the bar has in the opinion of the minister the qualifications necessary to adjudicate in a civil capacity between people and people, people and corporations, people and the government and in criminal cases, he should have the capacity to try divorce cases whether or not he is a county court or Supreme Court judge. Our only reason for maintaining the distinction is that it existed at the time of confederation and we have continued it to the present time. I suggest there should be only one category of judge rather than a division between county court, district court and Supreme Court.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The minister mentioned judges attending school. I think this is a very good idea. All people in authority should go to school. From time to time even the cabinet should take a little time off and go to school to learn something. They might even learn to answer questions, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: There are good reasons for this. While we should strive to develop jurisprudence which works toward achieving certain common objectives, nevertheless because human beings are what they are it is not easy to say, for example, that a person who has committed a criminal offence in the province of Ontario should receive the same punishment as a person who committed the same offence in the province of Alberta. Circumstances and environment differ. Each case must be considered entirely on its own merits.
I am nauseated when I hear people talking about uniformity of sentence. There can be no such thing as uniformity of sentence. Sentencing is one of the most important parts of our criminal jurisdiction. Having found a person guilty of a criminal offence, a most searching inquiry consistent with equity must be made into the background of the relevant, surrounding circumstances. I consider it quite improper for the Prime Minister or any minister to suggest that with respect to offences committed under the Narcotic Control Act or any section of the Criminal Code there must be uniformity of sentence. I believe the minister, in response to questions the other day, made this quite plain. There can be no more uniformity of sentence than there can be uniformity of individuals.
Judges Act
I think it would probably serve a good purpose if judges did get together to discuss among themselves their experiences and problems and listen to lectures. Nevertheless, there are limits to this type of practice. It is about time this House became a more effective and active instrument in the formulation of policy with regard to judges. I think it might be advisable if judges appeared before a committee of this House in Ottawa or somewhere else and discussed with the members of the committee, in an informal way, some of the problems which they as the judiciary have encountered. I think this practice would be very useful.
This may appear irrelevant, although it is in the context of what I have been saying, but I feel a committee should be charged with the continuing responsibility of examining our criminal law and all other types of law reform. The committee should be maintained through the course of Parliament, not only to deal with various bills which the minister presents but to deal with other matters of this kind. I think it would be most useful if in fact judges appeared before such a committee from time to time. The hearings could even be held in camera. In this way the committee would have the benefit of the judges' views.
I wish to stress the great importance of the character and type of people who are appointed to the bench. This matter has already been mentioned by the minister. We may talk about anti-bugging devices, matters of defence and secrecy and the problems of the unfortunate people who have become drug addicts, but in the final analysis the extent to which any society continues to survive depends upon those people who have been elevated to judge their fellow human beings. Nothing can be more important than to ensure that the quality and character of these people remains at the very highest level.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, the act before us is not as earthshaking as the minister indicated. However, it has given an opportunity to the minister, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and myself to make some general observations either criticizing or commending our judicial system. I should like to spend a moment or two speaking about the bill itself.


John Napier Turner: That would be a highly unusual practice.


Gerald William Baldwin: You are liable to be ruled out of order if you do that.

November 6, 1969
Judges Act


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would not venture to discuss the situation in Alberta, but the proposal to add five judges to the county courts in York and Carleton is highly commendable. The county court judges in these urban centres are the most overworked people in the judicial group. They have a very heavy workload and it is entirely appropriate that their number should be increased.
There should be one amendment in particular to the Code, that is, all judges should be given concurrent jurisdiction in matters of divorce. This was urged upon the minister's predecessor, now the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Bar Association. It made good sense then and it makes good sense now.


John Napier Turner: We have already done that. We have that provision in British Columbia.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It should be done right across the country. I do not understand this to be the case in Ontario. I still hear reports of the Supreme Court being clogged with divorce cases. This is causing long delays. I know they do odd things in British Columbia, but as far as I know the Supreme Court of Ontario is still very much tied up with divorce cases. This should not be the case. I am informed that at the beginning of the fall session of the courts the judges spent several weeks doing nothing but grinding out divorce judgments.


John Napier Turner: Will the hon. member permit a question Mr. Speaker? Is the hon. member aware that under the federal act the province can at any time designate the county court as having concurrent jurisdiction?


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not read the act in that way. I followed it closely and even urged an amendment in this House so that it would be clear there would be concurrent jurisdiction in county court judges. The predecessor of the minister, now the Prime Minister, said that although all the advice is to the contrary, we were not prepared to do this. I suggested the requisite amendment should be to the Divorce Act. It should be clear to the province that there is a designation of jurisdiction. There have been delays and attendant expense in the way these matters have been dealt with in the past.
It makes sense when county court judges have this added jurisdiction they will carry a heavier burden than is the case at the present time. I make no apology for approving the addition of these needed judicial officers even

at a time when in the interest of controlling inflation the economy axe is being used. It would be false economy to overburden the judicial process by not being ready to make additional judicial appointments when they are required.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There are other fields where the same principle applies. Parole is under the jurisdiction of his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), though I know the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) has particular interest in that subject. However, I suggest it is false economy not to increase substantially the number of parole officers. Every parole officer on the job saves the country a considerable amount of money, because they are able to service those who otherwise would be in detention. Certainly they can look after people on parole better than if they were still in detention. I hope that no attempt will be made to wield the economy axe as far as the appointment of additional staff in parole institutions is concerned.
The appointment of judges has been discussed, and in this regard I want to say something that I think the minister will be pleased to hear. As far as I know, since the minister has been Minister of Justice appointments to the bench have been of a very high calibre. The appointments have not been political appointments. May I congratulate him on those appointments of which I am aware, though I am not aware of all of them. However, I suggest it is simply not good enough for the minister to perform in the manner he is. If another minister were in his place we might again run into the sort of pork-barrel system that prevailed for many generations when people were appointed to the bench on the basis of political patronage. There has been no greater scandal in the judicial history of our country than this tendency that has existed in the past.
I am happy to say that I do not believe this practice exists today. Indeed, I hope it will never be resuscitated in the future. However, it is the system itself that requires change. We should not have to depend on the good intentions of ministers of justice who are from time to time appointed. The present minister says that he consults the bar associations and other qualified people with regard to judicial appointment, but I suggest some system be worked out under which the temptation to use these appointments for political purposes is removed.
November 6, 1969

I am aware of the conscious effort of the minister to take politics out of these appointments, but I hope he will not think this will be achieved merely by adopting his present practice for just a little while. I have seen new ministers of justice come to their portfolio with the highest intentions. The first few appointments made are admirable, but then as they linger on and the demands of former supporters become more insistent, later appointments do not reach the same high calibre of the earlier ones. I hope this will not happen as far as this minister is concerned, but I warn him that it has happened before and it might happen again. I suggest that while the opportunity presents itself he should ensure that some system of consultation is firmly embedded in the legislation.
I was delighted to hear that judges were going to be sent to school again. It has been my experience at the bar, especially when I was a young lawyer, that very few judges would have the humility to return to school. They seemed to know almost everything and did not require any instruction from counsel; at least, that could be said of some of them. I was glad to hear the minister say that some of their instruction would be in social subjects. I believe that past legal training has completely failed to instil any adequate social awareness in those who are called to the bar. They do not have any adequate knowledge of the modern social sciences to assist them to do their job. I hope that when judges return to school they will take these courses seriously; that they will be attended not by just a few conscientious judges but that they will be regularly attended by all judges.

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to learn that some English-speaking judges have taken French immersion courses.

I see no purpose in detaining the House longer by discussing this bill. As I said at the beginning, the subject is not earth-shaking. I think we might properly pass the bill, and may I thank the minister for taking the time and trouble to tell us something about how his department is approaching the whole question of judicial appointments and activities. I must say I was encouraged by what he said.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, while I do not wish to put myself forward as a connoisseur of the French language, I had to avail myself of the services of
Judges Act
the translator to appreciate the effort of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) at the close of his remarks.
I should also say that since the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) had occasion during the course of his speech to mention the present justices of the territorial courts in the Northwest Territories and Yukon territory, I would be very remiss if I did not take this occasion, one that I think is very appropriate, to commemorate the passing this past year of the first judge of the territorial court of the Northwest Territories, the Hon. Jack Sissons. I had the pleasure and privilege of articling in law at Lethbridge at a time when Judge Sissons was chief judge of the district court, and a very good friend of mine he was. He was also a very good friend of the native people of the Northwest Territories. I understand his popularity here was somewhat more circumscribed. I do not propose to attempt to discuss the judicial situation in the province of Ontario, but I should like to elaborate to some extent on a subject opened up by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) during his speech. I refer to the rationale for the division of the two courts in the province of Alberta.
By chapter 4 of the Statutes of Alberta, 1907, the district court was established on the basis that in every judicial district there would be a resident-I underline the word "resident"-district court judge who could exercise his jurisdiction, in the absence of a special direction, only within the judicial district in which he held his appointment. His civil jurisdiction in trial matters went to a maximum of $400.
At that time the Supreme Court, consisting of five judges, exercised both trial and appeal jurisdiction. There were nine judicial districts and two sub-judicial districts. Of these, the more populous were Calgary, with a population of 31,800; Edmonton, with a population of 20,500, including Strathcona; Lethbridge, with 6,200; and Medicine Hat with 4,300. The other judicial districts were Athabasca, Wetaskiwin, Red Deer, Stettler and Macleod.
A resident judge in a community of small population could become involved in the community life and intimately known by his neighbours. Therefore, it was not difficult to understand that it was in the interests of justice that an independent, removed judicial personage should come to the community to deal with the more serious civil and criminal matters and matters involving jury trials. With the difficulties of transportation it is

November 6, 1969
Judges Act
easy to understand why district court judges were also required to be resident judges. However, in 1933, by chapter 15 of the Statutes of Alberta the province was divided into district courts for northern and southern Alberta. The judges appointed had jurisdiction throughout the district; that is to say, judges appointed as district court judges for southern Alberta had complete jurisdiction throughout southern Alberta, and this was the case with the district court judges in northern Alberta district courts.
In effect, this meant the disappearance of resident judges as such. At the present time Alberta is served by eight district court judges for the district of northern Alberta, all of whom reside in Edmonton; and by six district court judges for the district of southern Alberta, four of whom reside in Calgary and two in Lethbridge. The district court judges in northern Alberta serve six judicial districts, and by order in council are required to hold court in 12 centres. The district court judges in southern Alberta serve six judicial districts as well, and by order in council are required to hold court in 19 centres. In each case, the centres other than those where the judges reside are served by judges travelling to these centres at the times scheduled to hear chamber applications, hold civil and criminal trials, deal with matters of adoption and wardship, probate, administration and the passing of accounts. In the matter of chamber applications, and in civil trials, the judges are frequently required to act and exercise jurisdiction as local judges of the Supreme Court.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The jurisdictional wall between the two courts, the district and Supreme Court, is an odd thing. The numerous overlappings and contradictions make it appear that it is something without any real, present day reason. The District Courts Act limits the trial jurisdiction to cases involving a monetary value of $2,000, but the Seizures Act gives complete jurisdiction to the district court. This jurisdiction involves the determination, in a summary way, with affadavit or viva voce evidence, of such matters as the right to make seizure, the amount payable between the parties or the ownership of goods. There have been in Calgary cases under this act where the question for determination was the ownership of $1 million worth of machinery and the ownership of $750,000 worth of bowling equipment. These cases were heard and 
determined in a summary way by the district court. The Surrogate Courts Act gives to judges of the district court jurisdiction in "all matters arising out of or connected with the issue and revocation of grants of probate and administration" and confers the rights and powers of the Supreme Court and of the judges and officers thereof.
There has never been any limitation of the value of a probate or administration with which a district court judge could deal, although in the past, before the Surrogate Courts Act, certain matters had to be referred to the Supreme Court. Under the Domestic Relations Act, Supreme Court judges hearing divorce actions have dealt with the question of the custody of the children and have awarded custody to one or other parent. No order for such custody is ever final and may be referred back to the court in the event of any change in the circumstances of the respective parties. But under the Child Welfare Act a judge of the district court has the power, and it must be frequently exercised, to make a child a permanent ward of the Crown and permit his or her adoption by other persons. In the exercise of this power a district court judge may make an order for permanent wardship which by section 32 of the Child Welfare Act takes precedence over any order for custody given by anyone else. With the consent of the parties a district court judge may as local judge of the Supreme Court hear and determine any action brought in the Supreme Court, and in such case he has the same powers as a judge of the Supreme Court. The district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Supreme Court in all matters except capital offences and trial by jury.
In southern Alberta, district court judges serve six judicial districts and hold court in 19 centres. Two of these are not visited with any regularity because they are close to other centres and the solicitors bring their work to these other centres. But the other 17 are served regularly. The judicial centres, six of them, are served regularly by the trial division of the Supreme Court. In Lethbridge, for example, where there are two resident district court judges and where the public is well served by them, the Supreme Court will attend four times in the spring term to do those things which a district court judge could do if he had the jurisdiction. Medicine Hat is served weekly by one or other of the district court judges from Lethbridge. Three times during the spring term judges of the
November 6, 1969

Supreme Court are required to go to Medicine Hat to do those things which the limit of jurisdiction prevents the district court judge from doing when he is there at the same time.
The district court judges from Calgary serve Hanna and Drumheller, both of which are judicial centres of separate judicial districts, once a month. In the spring term judges of the Supreme Court must go twice to Drumheller, in each case within a few days of the district court judge, to do those things which the division of the courts makes necessary. The same situation holds true in the judicial districts of northern Alberta outside the city of Edmonton.
It is significant that much of the work done by the judges of the district court in these outlying points is done in the exercise of their jurisdiction as local judges of the Supreme Court. But those functions which can be performed only by judges of the Supreme Court are not performed at those centres to which district court judges go, which are not the centres of judicial districts. Banff, Brooks, Cardston, Blairmore, Claresholm, to name just a few, although they are served regularly by the district court must bring all Supreme Court matters to Calgary, to Medicine Hat, to Lethbridge or to Fort Macleod. An amalgamation of the two courts would not diminish the service; it would only do away with the duplication, which is costly and senseless.
The qualifications for appointment as judge of the district court are the same as those for appointment as judge of the Supreme Court. The law and its application is the same in both courts, the rules of evidence are the same, the rules of court apply to both courts and the rules of procedure are the same. But the separation of the courts and the limits of jurisdiction placed on the district court leave the public with the impression that there is a lesser brand of justice in a lower court.
I realize that this a matter for reform by provincial government and I hope that with the endorsement of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) the Attorney General of Alberta will get the idea that this might be a good thing to do. I certainly hope the Minister of Justice is prepared to go along with any such action. The only cost to us is related to extra salaries. There are not too many things which western Canada feels it can learn from the province of Quebec, but we can look upon the actions of Quebec in this, regard as a very progressive step.
Judges Act


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if w.e had not been enticed to participate in this debate perhaps we would have dealt with the matter by now. A couple of points mentioned by the minister deserve elaboration. I do not suggest he did not cover the subject completely, but there is room for another expansion or point of view regarding the change that will take place. This is true particularly in view of the minister's suggestion that at the next session or some time in the near future there will be an overhaul of the Judges Act in terms of philosophy and structure rather than just changes in respect of bits and pieces of the act.
At the outset I would say in respect of the matter of judges salaries that so far as I am concerned, it is extremely important. Their job is in many cases extremely difficult. If there is only the matter of salaries involved, and by increasing salaries we can obtain a high standard and quality of judges in our courts, by all means raise the salaries. We should not be hesitant in this regard.
I know the government is sensitive about curtailing inflation through a reduction of government expenditure. The minister should not be timid in this area, because it is a very important field. Judges are public servants who deal with interpretation regarding the rights, functions and the position of society. The minister mentioned that some judges have recently gone to school.


John Napier Turner: I said they have gone back to school.


Frank Howard: I prefer my original phrase-some judges have recently gone to school, particularly in terms of bilingualism. In this regard many judges are lacking education in terms of the humanities of our society. Many of them are too damn legalistic and narrow minded when it comes to interpreting the law. They have no concept whatever of individual feelings. Many of them operate simply on the basis of the criminal law and mete out the full extent of the penalty the law provides. It is in this area that I think an element of education is necessary.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
Since I am not one of those who has any desire to be a judge, nor the opportunity since I am not in a field or activity that would lead to it, perhaps my remarks about judges may not be as precise as those of a lawyer. Quite frankly, however, I think there are too few judges in our court system and in our

November 6, 1969
Judges Act
society who have an all-embracing approach. There are too many judges, to put it the other way, who apply statutes universally whether they are dealing with the most violent criminal cases that come before them or with a young citizen who is appearing in court on a first offence for a minor, insignificant demeanor. There is a danger on the part of judges -and on the part of magistrates who do not fall within the jurisdiction here-to apply a sort of "two-bit" lecture approach without any concern for the individual or what is involved in a social or humanitarian sense.
I believe there is a tendency on the part of the courts and judges to disregard completely the whole social area of use or misuse of drugs. The misuse of drugs has reached fantastic proportions by any comparison with the past, and it has reached fantastic proportions in any comparison with age groups that use narcotics or hallucinatory drugs of all kinds now and those who used them in the past. In fact, government itself has today moved into this area, albeit on a scant basis, without too much understanding of what is involved in respect of the individual. How can one urge the judiciary to have any concern about this problem when they are faced with a particular law which they must enforce? I believe the judges, in the field of drug use and abuse, think in terms of the full impact of the criminal law against the offender and in the context that the penalty must be a preventive and deterrent measure. I believe it can be reasonably and logically argued that there is no connection whatever, in the field of drug use and misuse, between the deterrent concept and the actual use of the drug.
It is true that judges are enforcing the law as it is. Nonetheless, there is a certain psychology involved. The idea would seem to be that so long as the individual is behind bars and is in jail, he is not using drugs. Although that is not always the case, it is at least the case in theory. We have read of instances where judges, in meting out offences for a criminal act, will make the senseless statement that they are sentencing an individual to a particular institution because there he will have an opportunity to learn a trade. We have also read about judges meting out sentences to mentally or emotionally disturbed individuals who will make this sort of gracious remark, "I am sentencing you to this particular institution so that you will receive psychiatric help". Anyone who has paid the least attention to what goes on in our penal institutions is aware that the judges just do not know what they are talking about when

they make such declarations when sentencing people to penal institutions. They hope the person will receive psychiatric treatment or learn a trade so that they will become worthwhile members of society.
If judges were to go back to school, I think one of the requirements should be that they spend a certain period in our penal institutions which deal with young offenders. This should not be a casual visit which they would make when everything would be laid out and everything that was undesirable would be kept out of the way. Rather, it should be an extended visit in the form of an immersion course so that they would have an opportunity to find out what goes on in penal institutions. In this way a judge who hands down a sentence that an individual is to be incarcerated in jail would at least know through some association with the institution, from having visited there on a number of occasions, to what he is sentencing the individual. He might thereby have a more human attitude about the sentence he is meting out.
I do not think too many people will disagree with what I am about to say. Certainly some members of the House who are lawyers have spoken on this subject. We have two types of justice. Even though the standard of law may be the same, the justice which is meted out to the rich is different from the type of justice meted out to the poor. I am sure that from his activity in the legal field the minister is aware of cases where the person charged with an offence, because he did not have a fair amount of money at his disposal, was not able to arrange for the best hearing or obtain the best lawyer to fight his case through the legal system and the loopholes which exist in it.
There are in our society many people who do not have sufficient understanding of what is involved in court procedure. These people sometimes appear unrepresented in court either because of threats by the R.C.M.P. or perhaps because of promises of some sort of act of justice. They lack an understanding of their position, appear in court and plead guilty to charges of which they are in fact not guilty. Had they had the money with which to obtain proper legal assistance, in many instances they would never have been convicted.
So there is in the very practice of it, one type of justice for the rich and another for the poor. I believe this is something which must be looked at. I put forward these few ideas from the limited experience I have in
November 6, 1969

the courts and the legal system in the hope that they might have some effect on what is finally transformed into law when the philosophy relating to judges and the manner in which they enforce the law is considered.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I call on the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) to address us on the subject of Bill C-2 I think I should remind hon. members that we are dealing with a bill which is rather limited in scope. I understand the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) when he presented the bill did open the subject by ranging far and wide. This having been allowed, it is very difficult to confine hon. members to the very narrow scope of the bill. However, in our future contributions to the debate we should try to keep as close as possible to the scope of the bill.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to justice, I feel I am to be judged by a different law than the hon. members who have already spoken. Therefore, perhaps you will excuse me if I vary a little from the scope of the bill. I should like to commend the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for his contribution. Some of the remarks he made, I had intended to make myself.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I should like to make one point in connection with justice. I am not suggesting that there should not be more judges appointed in Alberta or Ontario, but I think that judges appointed in the future should receive further training in the social understanding of Indians and Eskimos. This is an area in which these people do not understand the law as does the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) or members of the house; therefore, I think that the judges appointed in this area of Canada should have special training in this respect. Many Indians feel that there is inequality in the way in which laws are applied, and I do not think the Minister of Justice would be happy about that.
I should like to commend the minister on appointing permanent magistrates in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I think this was a good move. However, I have a criticism to make. As I understand it, the prosecuting attorney is appointed by the Department of Justice on a more or less haphazard basis. If I am in error, I will gladly accept correction in this respect. However, it is my understanding that it was done on a casual basis because there were no permanent
Judges Act
people available to act as crown prosecutors in some places in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. If this is the case, I think the minister should consider the appointment of a permanent crown prosecutor in addition to the additional judges in Ontario and Alberta.
I hope the minister will be able to answer the question I am putting to him now.


John Napier Turner: I will
answer the hon. member by asking whether he is aware that in the Northwest Territories there is a permanent crown prosecutor, and that at his request we appoint deputy crown prosecutors from the province of Alberta to help him when he considers that his caseload has become too burdensome for him to carry alone. There is also a permanent prosecutor in the Yukon, although the latter has now left the practice of law and I have to replace him.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. Since I am neither a jurist nor a regular visitor of courts of justice, perhaps I am not fully qualified to discuss tonight's subject. I only wish to make a few comments on something the minister said when he introduced his bill.
First, I have nothing against the appointment of additional judges in Alberta and Ontario, quite the contrary; however, considering what is going on these days, I wonder if enough good judges can be found. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) declared earlier that it is better to appoint good judges than bilingual judges, and I could not agree more. I am in favour of that because, according to what the minister said, it was a matter of establishing language schools in order to give judges an opportunity to master a second language.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, I feel somewhat skeptical and concerned, because I have the impression that before speaking a second language fluently, particularly when it comes to deciding the fate of an individual, one has to be perfectly bilingual.
I doubt that even in the most up-to-date language schools, it would be possible in more or less short periods to make a judge fluent enough in the other official language to allow him to judge adequately the case of the accused before him.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I myself would be rather concerned had I to appear before a judge who does not speak my language. My comments however do not apply to a court
November 6, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion comprising three or five judges, one of whom at least speaks the language of the accused.
In that case, the judges by consulting each other will better understand the testimony and the defence of the accused.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be necessary to be very cautious when choosing judges who will have to hear the cases of the accused.


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


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock it is my duty to inform the house that the proceedings are now deemed to have been completed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labradorj: Mr. Speaker, on October 29, about eight or nine days ago, during the regular question period I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the target date of Bell Canada for improved telephone service in southern Labrador has been set ahead to January, 1970, and in view of the fact that the Department of Transport withdrew its radio, telephone and telegram service from that area on August 1 of this year to coincide with the inauguration of the improved Bell Canada service which did not materialize, will the Minister of Transport arrange for the radio, telephone and telegram service of the Department of Transport to be reinstated and maintained until such time as Bell Canada has completed its installation in 1970 and is capable of providing reasonable communications in that area?
You were quite right when you said that I had made a representation, but Your Honour said the question should be placed on the order paper. I must say, with all respect, that I cannot accept that suggestion because the result of putting it on the order paper would be that the answer would not be forthcoming for about two months, at which time the question would become obsolete. For that reason I have to take it up with the minister now. I communicated this problem to the

Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in a letter which I wrote him on July 11. It reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Jamieson: I am enclosing a petition received from the residents of Henley Harbour, Labrador, regarding the proposal of the Department of Transport to withdraw its radio-telephone service from South Labrador as of August 1, 1969. I have also received correspondence from several other communities in Labrador South requesting that the service of your department be maintained until the Bell Canada service is brought up to a better standard.
I support this petition, and ask that you also give it sympathetic consideration.
I would appreciate your comments.
Yours sincerely, Ambrose Peddle, M.P.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I received a very prompt reply on July 15, four days afterwards, from Mr. Ross, special assistant to the minister, saying that the minister was out of town, and advising me that my letter and the petition I had forwarded had been brought to the attention of the appropriate officials for their consideration and report; on receipt of that report they would be pleased to get in touch with me again. On August 14, about 30 days later, I had a communication from the minister which read:
Further to the letter of July 15 from my Special Assistant, concerning the withdrawal of the department's radio-telephone message service at Henley Harbour, I share your concern and will do everything possible to ensure that adequate service is provided to the residents of this area.
Before that, during that and following that I received a number of petitions from the area of Labrador south. The people there are very concerned because Bell Canada was supposed to have a decent service inaugurated by August 1, and on this basis the Department of Transport decided to withdraw its service on August 1. However, Bell Canada, because of certain problems caused by strikes and God knows what, found they could not improve their service. I have been in communication with Bell Canada who have told me there were a number of parts-I do not know the technical names for them-that were needed but could not be provided. They now tell me that these parts cannot be made available until late November, that a number of them will be assembled in Montreal and forwarded to Labrador south, and that improvement to the service will be in full effect as of some time in January, 1970.
I have had communications and petitions from people in places such as Port Hope Simpson, Labrador; Henley Harbour, Marys
November 6, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Harbour and Cartwright-communities in which several hundred people live. They are not asking for anything fancy; they are asking only that the Department of Transport continue to provide its service until the independent organization, Bell Canada, gets around to providing a decent service.
I earnestly hope, Mr. Speaker, that the answer from the minister's representative will not be, "We are looking into it." There has been ample time to look into it. I have given these communications to the minister; he expressed his concern to me and said he would see that a reasonable standard of service was maintained. I hope that will be the case.
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that not only is the minister looking into it but that he can give a very encouraging answer to the hon. member. I suppose the hon. member's question is directed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) because the Minister of Transport is from his province, but I should point out that responsibility for the maintenance of the Labrador service now rests with the Department of Telecommunications.
The difficulties referred to are the unfortunate result of unavoidable delays in the delivery of equipment to Bell Canada, which holds the franchise for the area and which is to take over the service previously provided by the Department of Transport. Changes were made in anticipation of the transfer to Bell Canada, but because of the timing problem certain inconveniences have resulted, and as the hon. member has mentioned, his people have been suffering since.
Steps have been taken to correct these inconveniences. The Minister of Transport has indicated a willingness to reactivate the original equipment at those locations where this appears necessary, as an interim measure until the Bell service is in full operation. In this regard, stations that were serviced by Department of Transport radio-telephones up to August 1 are now being reactivated. Both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans) will do everything possible to ensure that service to people of the Labrador coast is maintained at least at the level that prevailed before the Bell transfer was undertaken. As the hon. member can see, the Minister of Transport, who is from the same province, is looking after the interests of the people of Newfoundland.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion CANADA ELECTIONS ACT-SUGGESTED VOTE BY MAIL FOR DISABLED PERSONS


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be raising a question during the late show on a night when it seems that we are getting favourable replies. My question is based on a point which I raised on Monday, November 3, as recorded in Hansard at page 405, when I asked this question:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that when the Manitoba legislature amended the provincial Elections Act to provide for voting at age 18 it also included a provision to make it possible for persons who are so disabled they cannot get to the polls to vote by mail, I wonder whether the federal government would consider making a similar recommendation so far as the federal Elections Act is concerned?
The Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) replied that he was not responsible for amendments to the Elections Act and that I should put my question to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald). I was a little puzzled by his advice because I had looked at the book that morning and found that it confirmed that the Secretary of State is responsible for the supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer. However, that is a minor point and I am delighted to see the President of the Privy Council here tonight to respond to my question.
Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that the Manitoba legislature at a recent special session did pass Bill 38, entitled an act to amend the Elections Act. This bill makes two changes. On the one hand it lowers the voting age for provincial elections in Manitoba to 18 and, in addition, it includes a provision under which persons who are physically incapacitated may cast their vote by mail. The arrangements, of course, are spelled out in Manitoba's Bill 38 and are similar to arrangements made for members of the armed forces to vote in the federal election and the arrangements made in some other provinces for absentee voting.
However, the details are not important; what is important is that something has been done. In Manitoba persons who are physically incapacitated and therefore through no fault of their own are unable to go to the polls will be able to exercise their franchise in provincial elections in my province. It is my earnest hope that a similar provision will be included in the Canada Elections Act, and that this will be one of the results of the study to that legislation now being given by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
November 6, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I hope the House will not mind if I take a moment or two to pay tribute to a person who is recognized as being largely responsible for this achievement in Manitoba. I believe this person is known to my hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council. Dr. Isabel MacArthur, a woman in her early fifties who has been a victim of multiple sclerosis for nearly a decade and who pursued a very active career before she became incapacitated, has been working from her bed on this issue of votes for disabled persons. She has written a great many letters to various persons in Manitoba, seeking support for the change that has now been accomplished there. Members of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House have received letters from her, as have various members of the federal government and various officials here in Ottawa. After bill 38 was passed in Manitoba she wrote a letter to Premier Schreyer. This was in October, and this is what she said:
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the 2nd part of Bill 38 which allows voting by mail. I hope that the Federal government will take a "Leaf from Manitoba's Book."
Sincerely
(Dr.) Isabel MacArthur
I want to read a sentence or two from the letter Premier Schreyer sent to this lady, also in October. At the end of his first paragraph he wrote:
I believe the passage of this measure was due in no small part to your own determined efforts.
After indicating that he was forwarding certain material to some of us here in Ottawa, he concluded by saying:
With kind regards and my good wishes to a very gallant lady.
I join in that tribute paid by Premier Schreyer to this outstanding Manitoban, Dr. Isabel MacArthur, and I hope that the appeal she has been making to the federal government and to the members of our Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will have the same successful outcome that has attended her efforts in Manitoba.
After all, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of an election is to enable all citizens to express their view by casting their vote. When people cannot get to the polls I think we ought to make arrangements so that their votes can be counted. I believe this ought to apply in particular to those people who cannot get to the polls through no fault of theirs, particularly when they are bed-ridden or unable to get
tMr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
out at all. Dr. MacArthur once made the statement that she often wondered why people did not do something about matters of this sort. The time came when she realized that it was up to her to do that something. She made the effort in Manitoba and succeeded. I join with others in paying tribute to her and I hope the federal government will also look sympathetically at this proposal and make an appropriate recommendation so that when the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections makes its report we shall have an amendment to The Canada Elections Act that will enable those who cannot get to the polls, and particularly those who cannot get to the polls because of physical incapacity, to vote, either by mail or by proxy, in all federal elections.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) indicated, Dr. MacArthur's appeal comes with greater force to me because she has been a long-standing friend of my family in Winnipeg. I first met her when I was a boy. Her idea has force. I am also glad to support her idea from a personal standpoint.
As the House knows, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has already commenced studies of the Elections Act, including the changes in this regard. I have given notice of a motion to authorize the committee in the present session to continue that study. During the last session I had already recommended to the chairman of that committee and to members of this party on the committee that they give special attention to the question of absentee voting. I was referring not only to absentee voting in the case of those whom I regard as being most meritorious in deserving consideration because of their physical incapacity, but to the absentee votes of other people who for a variety of reasons would not be able to exercise their franchise. It would not matter whether they are resident abroad or whether there are difficulties preventing their voting at the advanced poll in Canada.
Hon. members will recall the committee recommended against the permanent voters' list scheme for Canada, and it must be recognized a permanent voters list would certainly have facilitated absentee voting. I still regard absentee voting as possible and I am very hopeful the committee will give particular priority to seeking a solution to this question to facilitate absentee voting. I repeat in public what I already recommended in private, that
November 6, 1969	COMMONS
they should give particular attention to the bills that have been adopted by the province in this regard. I believe an even more encompassing bill is now in force in British Columbia, and I hope we might have a recommendation from them as to an effective method for absentee balloting for the voting of not only those physically incapacitated but others who, for a variety of reasons, may not be able to be present at the polls on either voting day or at the advance poll.
I have one or two comments regarding Bill 38. I am surprised it is confined only to the physically incapacitated and does not extend the franchise even further. I would like to be satisfied, which I am not by Bill 38, that the anonymity of the ballot, the secrecy of the ballot, will not suffer in the course of the mail ballot. Subject to that I have no hesitation in recommending the proposal to the members of the committee, and I am hopeful that perhaps before the House rises at Christmas time we may have a definitive report from the committee including a favourable recommendation along this line.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.



NAVIGATION-MACKENZIE RIVER-INQUIRY AS TO AGREEMENT WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the reason I appear tonight is not so much because I am dissatified with the answer I received from the minister but because under the rules a member who is not satisfied with the ruling of Mr. Speaker may raise the point at this time. I say this with some deference, but the problem I raised and the manner in which I raised my question was on a par with questions being asked yesterday in connection with the port of Vancouver. These questions were close and I intended my question to be close. It is for that reason I sought to speak on this occasion tonight.
The problem of navigation on the Mackenzie River affects far fewer people than does the situation in the port of Vancouver, but for those people along the Mackenzie River and part of the Northwest Territories it is far more important. That is why I insisted upon the problem being ventilated. There is a problem in that area. I do not suppose many hon. members are aware of what has happened, but with a great fanfare the province of British Columbia constructed a huge hydro-electric dam on the Peace River at Partridge
DEBATES	629
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mountain, upstream from Hudson Hope. At the time the chief engineers on this project warned that the hydro-electric scheme tied in with, shall we say, a B.C.-Pacific coast ridge, could theoretically and quite effectively cut off all the water downstream in order to fulfil the requirements for hydro-electric power.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
It must be remembered that under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, protection must be provided. The act envisages protection of downstream interests when obstructions on navigable rivers are erected. This protection is not limited to those years when there is sufficient rainfall and adequate water resources. You have to take it by and large, good years and bad. It is said that this year there was a deficiency in rainfall. But what we saw, Mr. Speaker, was a deficiency in the water levels of the Athabasca River, as evidenced this spring. There was a deficiency in the level of the Mackenzie River, particularly this fall, for navigation purposes downstream, to such an extent that a crown company, Northern Transportation, had to make a public statement that it would have to undertake many hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditure to clear the Sans Sault rapids for navigation purposes if it were to fulfil its contracts in the forthcoming year, to justify the fleet it now has and to which it committed itself in the future.
The company stated that, as a result of the government's cutback in expenditure, the Department of Public Works could not clear this obstacle to navigation. Barges travelled downstream at 40 per cent load at a time of year when there was unprecedented development on the Arctic slope and a real opportunity to develop Canada's portion of the Arctic.
I am not blaming the minister; I blame the faceless people in this administration who have not the smallest conception of what transportation in remote areas of Canada means to developing businesses. At a time when we are asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic and trying to develop new resources, the government makes across-the-board cutbacks. No doubt the estimates of the minister's department have been cut back, and as I say I do not blame him. I blame those faceless members in Ottawa who sit in those comfortable pews and have not the slightest idea what is happening in the north.
I want to know just what is happening in the matter of navigation on the Mackenzie
November 6, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion River. I was hoping that the minister would make a full statement outlining the difficulties. I was hoping he would explain why the government has not insisted in the past that the government of British Columbia enter into an agreement so that the downstream benefits are protected. I should like to know why it is that the town of Peace River has to sue to protect its position. Why has navigation along the Athabasca River been affected? The federal government has to go to the government of British Columbia cap in hand every time the government of British Columbia takes some action in connection with B.C. Hydro and the water level of the Peace River dam. The Department of Public Works has been derelict in the responsibility conferred on it by the Navigable Waters Protection Act to protect the interests of the province of Alberta and the Northwest Territories in regard to navigable waters.
I hope I have exposed the problem sufficiently and have justified my putting the question and the suggestion that Mr. Speaker should not have ruled it out of order.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for having brought this matter to the attention of the House. First, it gives me an opportunity as well as the hon. member to confirm the importance of the Mackenzie River. He will recall that Sir Alexander Mackenzie in 1789 called it the river of disappointment. I hope that to most Canadians today it is the river of very great hope. We hope to make a first-class commercial river along this route. Freight carried this year by the Northern Transportation Company was of the order of 235,000 tons. We hope that by 1972 this will be in excess of 800,000 tons. Not only is there a tremendous amount of activity along the Mackenzie River as a result of companies exploring for oil and metals, but also because of companies operating in the high Arctic Islands and Panarctic Islands.
Last summer the Northern Transportation Company carried 235,000 tons of freight at an
average cost of $85 per ton, compared with $25 per ton out of Seattle. We expect to make the Mackenzie River an important traffic artery. That is why we have obtained about $500,000 for blasting to remove the rock at Sans Sault rapids. We intend to make a passage of about 600 feet in width over a distance of 900 feet. As my hon. friend has pointed out, there was a loss of about 25 days in shipping as a result of low water in the Mackenzie this year and because of the situation at Sans Sault rapids. Last year we had a very low level of rainfall and the drainage was low. Unfortunately the action by British Columbia Hydro in filling their reservoir as quickly as possible cut the level of water severely. When a corporation spends $741 million on a dam, it wants to get water behind it as soon as it can in order to sell power.
This action cut back the normal discharge of water of 36,000 cubic feet per second on one occasion to 1,000 cubic feet per second. My hon. friend pointed out that no permit was issued. Apparently at that time the company was not required to take out a permit. Having regard to correspondence and questions by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), I had contact with Mr. Gordon Shrum, chairman of the British Columbia Hydro. He admitted that the company had cut down the outflow to 1,100 feet per second in July, 1,000 feet per second in August and 4,900 feet per second in September. When we made representations the company brought it back as quickly as it could to 15,000 feet. The danger spot occurs in the month of September and the 15 days in October when we are still shipping on the river. Prior to that the normal river flow supplies us with ample water-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.32 p.m.
November 6, 1969



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
I.	GENERAL REMARKS
Over the past few months careful and detailed consideration has been given to those aspects of Volume II of the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Bicul-turalism which are of particular interest to the federal government. Special attention has been devoted to an examination of the extent to which the federal government may be able to assist in this area.
The government acknowledges that much of the substance of the recommendations put forward in Book II is more in the provincial domain than that of the federal government, both in terms of constitutional jurisdiction and as a practical matter. Nevertheless, we believe that there is a dimension to the problem which perforce involves the federal government.
As we see it, this entails the development and encouragement of programs to reinforce and advance the use of the two official languages across the country. More specifically, it relates to twelve of the royal commissioners' recommendations which are addressed directly to the federal government. We also believe that it involves a concerted effort in co-operation with the provinces to ensure that full advantage is taken of the widespread desire, not only to ensure equal rights to the official minority language communities, but also to encourage second-language learning.
The government's basic position is that we accept the principles underlying the recommendations addressed to the federal government and are prepared to provide for a financial contribution to support their implementation. This means that the government is ready to accept its responsibilities as set out by the royal commissioners. It is clear of course that action in this field cannot depend on the federal government alone, for these proposals relate to educational institutions and programmes which are a provincial responsibility. Translation of these principles into practice therefore requires acceptance by the provinces, and beyond that a willingness on their part to take the initiative in putting new programmes into effect.
Secondly, the federal government welcomes and fully supports the view expressed by Canadians that the time has come to provide a better opportunity in Canada, particularly among young people, to learn the second official language, whether this be French or English, as the case may be. We recognize that this would require a concerted effort in the field of education, which is pre-eminently the concern of the provinces, and we will be examining the possibilities for action in this area with the provinces.
Because the government is aware not only of provincial interests but of provincial responsibilities and jurisdiction, our suggestions have been put forward as a basis for discussion and consultation and it is the government's hope that further consideration of the matter can go forward in this spirit. Federal representatives look forward to meeting with their provincial counterparts to work out formulae which will be satisfactory to all concerned.
With respect to financing the programmes involved, the government has indicated that it has no choice but to establish priorities and limitations for all programmes across the range of governmental activities. We have suggested that, realistically, even the best will in the world does not necessarily carry with it the ability to disperse unlimited funds. We have therefore informed the provinces that, after the most careful consideration, the government feels obliged to place at least approximate limits on the amounts which it can contribute to this programme.
II.	RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION WHICH ARE ADDRESSED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The twelve recommendations specifically directed to the federal government can be grouped into five categories: the first is recommendation 26 which asserts a general principle; second, recommendation 27 has reference to minority language schools; third, there are four recommendations-numbers 28 and 29, 41 and 42-which have regard to
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1969
teacher-training; fourth, recommendations 23, 24, 25, 30 and 44 are related to university education; and finally, recommendation 46 is concerned with the establishment of a language research council.
a)	General Principle
Recommendation 26 asserts a general proposition to the effect that the federal government should accept, in principle, the responsibility for additional costs involved in official-language minority education. The financial implications of this recommendation and the means of giving substance to this principle are to be found in the remaining recommendations addressed to the federal authority.
b)	Primary and Secondary Schools
Recommendation 27 proposes a formula
which might be used as a basis for establishing costs and the extent of federal financial aid for official-language minority schools. The formula proposed is that a federal grant to provinces be based on the number of students attending official-language minority schools, and that the grant be 10 per cent of the average cost of education per student within the province. The federal government accepts the principle that a grant should be made to provinces for additional costs entailed in providing minority-language education. The government believes, however, that the costing of this recommendation, including the question whether the 10 per cent formula could be applied universally and equitably across the country, svill require further examination and consultation with the provinces.
c)	Teacher-Training
Recommendation 28 proposes a federal grant to Quebec, Ontario and New Brunswick to be based on the number of students attending official-language minority teacher-training institutions, the grant to be 10 per cent of the cost per student plus 10 per cent of capital costs in future. Again, in accordance with the principle that federal government is willing to provide assistance in respect of additional costs arising from minority-language education, we are prepared in principle to accept this recommendation, subject to further discussion of its implications with the provinces.
Recommendation 29 relates to a teachertraining institution at Moncton to service the Western provinces. It suggests that the federal grant to the provinces be 25 per cent of the
cost per student attending each of the two teacher-training institutions. A further recommendation is made that for the Western provinces there be a federal grant covering 75 per cent of capital costs of the institution, and that for the college at Moncton, the grant should cover 50 per cent of capital costs attributable to out-of-province students. The government is prepared to accept this recommendation as a basis for discussion with the provinces, recognizing of course that they may have comments and suggestions regarding numbers of institutions and locations, as well as on the question of financing.
Recommendations 41 and 42 relate to the creation of second-language training centres, designed for the training of language teachers, and to the establishment of an interprovincial bureau of second-language training centres. Recommendation 41 proposes a federal grant to the interprovincial bureau and recommendation 42 suggests that there be a federal-provincial sharing of capital costs of the second-language training centres. The government is prepared to accept the principles embodied in these recommendations and to discuss their implementation with the provinces. In order to give greater encouragement to second-language learning, the government is also prepared to think in terms of a larger number of institutions than that envisaged by the royal commission. Beyond that, we also consider that there may be somehing to be gained by providing for modest bursaries to teachers who would be attending these or similar training institutions, in order to ensure that they would be able to do so without undue hardship. We are prepared to discuss all these aspects with the provinces.
d)	University Education
Recommendation 23 proposes a federal grant to official minority-language students to enable them to study in their own language at a university outside their province when appropriate courses are not offered within the province. The government is ready to accept participation in a programme of this nature and is prepared to discuss the manner of its implementation with the provincial representatives.
Recommendation 24, which should be read in conjunction with recommendation 23, provides for a grant for additional costs that the host university will be expected to incur in respect of visiting students. The commissioners recommend that the grant be equivalent
November 6, 1989
[Stage Direction]
to the normal provincial grant to the university. The government is prepared to consider grants for this purpose and to review with the provinces the amounts which might be involved and the manner in which they might be made.
Recommendation 25 proposes that the federal and provincial governments reach agreement on measures required to meet the special needs of French-language universities. In the government's view, this recommendation appears to require special treatment. Our consideration of the matter leads us to believe that it would be difficult to judge the extent of these needs without further study. We have therefore suggested to the provinces that studies be conducted into the nature and dimensions of these needs and the manner of meeting them within available resources. The federal government would be prepared to consider participating in the financing of such studies.
Recommendation 30 proposes that there be a federal grant to provinces in respect of official minority-language universities which would amount to 10% of the provincial grants to these universities. Again, the government is prepared to accept the principle of federal grants for this purpose and to work out the modalities in consultation with the provinces.
Recommendation 44 suggests that the federal government meet the cost of a one-year transfer programme for university students specializing in the second official language. Within limits which will need to be agreed upon, as to the number of students who could be involved in such a programme and the cost per student, the government is prepared to accept this recommendation as well. We would hope to examine the possibilities for such a programme with the provinces.
e)	Language Research Council
Recommendation 46 proposes that a language research council be established by the federal government. We are ready to accept this recommendation and to consult interested parties on the implications of establishing such a council, as well as to the manner in which it could best serve to meet the requirements of improved minority-language education and second-language training.
III.	SECOND-LANGUAGE LEARNING
A study of the recommendations of the commission which are addressed to the federal government shows that they are intended
to cover both minority-language education and second-language learning. The first of these priorities is designed to redress an imbalance which has existed for many years and to ensure access to education in the minority, as well as the majority, language across Canada, wherever this is feasible. The second priority goes beyond this and looks to a future in which there will be an increasing opportunity for all Canadians to learn their second official language.
The government accepts both these priorities, and our acceptance of both is reflected in our willingness to provide financial assistance in both areas in the light of the commission's recommendations. We believe, however, that the further effort which may be required to improve the quality and the quantity of second-language instruction requires experience and knowledge of curricula, facilities and other matters of concern to educators in the provinces. As a result, we believe that further action in this field will require the closest consultation with the provinces on the dimensions of a rational programme in this area, and the means available to meet the needs once the latter are determined.
IV.	FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
Based on our studies, we believe that the recommendations which I have just reviewed can be met, insofar as a federal contribution is concerned, by financial participation in the order of about $50 million for a full year of operations. This amount could increase, within limits established in terms of available resources, as the programme expands with enhanced participation on the part of the provinces. As far as we are concerned, the programme could go into operation in January of next year.
The government naturally envisages a series of further discussions and consultations among federal and provincial representatives on financial aspects of the programme. It was considered desirable, however, to provide a reasonably clear indication at the outset of the limits which financial considerations place on the potential federal contribution.
V.	CONCLUSION
The government regards the problems which have been examined by the royal commissioners, with respect to minority-language education and second-language learning, as being of fundamental significance to the future of Canada. The extent to which the
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1969
Canadian people will succeed in reaching their goals depends, in our view, on our ability to face up realistically to the facts of life in a federal state comprising ten provinces and two major linguistic groups. We believe that the royal commission report takes us a long way forward in this direction. It is clear
that there are limits-of a technical, financial and human order-as to what can be accomplished in this area, but we believe that we can nevertheless do a great deal. The federal government is prepared to do its part. It profoundly hopes that the provinces will wish to do likewise.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 7, 1969