1969-05-14

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Caccia.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What amount of federal aid has been extended to Melville Pulp and Paper Company Ltd. in each of the past five years?
2.	How much of this assistance was in the form of (a) grants (b) loans and at what terms (e) accelerated capital cost allowance?
3 Who is the principal owner or majority shareholder of Melville Pulp and Paper Company Ltd.?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
1.	None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


APPOINTMENT OF LEVEL SIX POSTAL OFFICERS
Mr. Orlikow: 1 How many new level six postal officers have been appointed since January 1, 1969 and how many more is it proposed to appoint?
2.	What salaries will these postal officers (level six) be paid?
3.	What is the reason for this increase in postal officers (level six) and what are the duties of these officers?
4.	Do the level six postal officers get mileage payments when they travel in their own cars and, if so, how much?
5.	How much money has been allocated for payments of expenses for level six postal officers in the coming fiscal year?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is quite long, would the house agree to its being put on the record and deemed to have been read?
1.	The need for additional supervision within the letter carrier function was foreseen and planned for in 1967. The need arose particularly from the new walk evaluation system which was being developed. To meet the need, 280 positions of Postal Operations, Level 6, were allocated. Of these 146 have now been filled.
2.	Level 6 salary range: $6,973, $7,196, $7,419.
3.	The basic structure of supervision in the letter carrier group was reviewed because of changes in work which had been introduced. The most significant of these changes had to do with a new walk evaluation system, developed and tested with the cooperation of the Letter Carriers' Union and implemented following agreement in principle between the union and the department. The system was designed to meet the need to ensure an equitable work load for each letter carrier and to offset any adverse effects resulting from substantial changes in the nature of a walk.
These officers are required to perform duties in accordance with the job description found on page 24 of the Classification Group Standard, Postal Operations Group, Operational Category, which has been made available to the unions.
4.	Yes, if no public transportation is available or convenient. Mileage allowance is paid in accordance with Treasury Board Travel Regulations and the rates are as follows: (a) For each of the first 5,000 miles with proof of commercial insurance:	13 cents per mile;
without proof of commercial insurance: 12 cents per mile, (b) For each of the next 3,000 miles with or without proof of commercial insurance, 12 cents per mile, (c) For each mile in excess of 8,000 miles, 9 cents per mile.

May 14. 1969
Questions
5.	No funds have been allocated specifically for the use of these supervisors. Postmasters have authority to approve the use of privately owned motor vehicles by all supervisory officers who might be required to do so in the performance of their duties where no public transportation is available or convenient. Such expenses will be paid out of a general travel fund.


POSTAL RATES REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN RATIOS
Mr. Kaplan: Has the Post Office Department estimated what postal rates must be set to maintain the present ratios as between classes of mail service and provide six-day service without additional deficits and, if so, what are such rates?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Post Office Department is concerned: The saving in cost in reducing to 5-day delivery service in urban areas is approximately $10,000,000 annually. While it would be difficult to estimate the effect on all postal rates of restoring this service, it would be necessary to increase the letter rate by the equivalent of jip a letter to offset the cost of the additional delivery service.


HIRING OF ROD SERVICES EMPLOYEES
Mr. Maclnnis: 1.	(a) How many employees of Rod Services have been engaged by the Post Office Department as at March 21, 1969 (b) of the Rod Services employees hired to date by the Post Office Department, how many were hired according to normal Civil Service qualifying and eligibility procedures and how many were appointed by Order in Council?
2.	In what positions were Rod Services employees taken into the Post Office Department?
3.	(a) In the case of Rod Services employees hired by the Post Office Department, were they hired through the Public Service Commission according to Civil Service regulations and normal Civil Service procedures and did they qualify for Civil Service employment in the normal way (b) were any hired as prevailing rates employees and, if so, how many and how did they qualify?
4.	(a) Is it the intention of the Post Office Department to offer positions to the remaining several hundred Rod Services employees and, if so, how is it proposed to qualify them for employment according to Civil Service regulations (b) is it the intention to waive normal Civil Service procedures and eligibility lists in this instance and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. (a) 27; (b) These 27

were hired under the Public Service Employment Act and Regulations.
2.	Mail Service courier positions.
3.	(a) See 1 (b); (b) No.
4.	(a) The Post Office Department advises that transportation studies are under way in the Department covering all aspects of city mail transportation requirements to determine the most effective means of providing these services; (b) No.


PRE-DOCTORAL CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS
Mr. Salfsman: 1.	In the academic years 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, how many applications for predoctoral Canada Council grants were received?
2.	In those years, how many were granted?
3.	In those years, how many were turned down for lack of funds rather than lack of merit?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The numbers of applications for pre-doctoral fellowships were as follows: in
1965- 66, 931; in 1966-67, 1053; in 1967-68, 1,435; in 1968-69, 2,504; in 1969-70, 3,603. It should be noted that the figure for 1965-66 includes 168 applications under the pre-master scholarship program which was discontinued that year.
2.	The numbers of pre-doctoral fellowships granted were as follows: in 1965-66, 323; in
1966- 67, 429; in 1967-68, 949; in 1968-69, 1,554; in 1969-70, 2,165. The figure for 1965-66 includes 33 awards under the pre-master scholarship program which was discontinued that year.
3.	Such statistics are not known. The Council in allocating funds for doctoral fellowships takes into account the possible number of applicants from the universe of eligible doctoral candidates and the requirements of its other programmes. The members of the selection juries in assessing the applications rank the candidates in order of merit within a quota system, the formula being that of a competition and not of an examination. It is not possible, therefore, to determine the number of deserving candidates not being offered awards in a given year for lack of funds.


NEW REVISED STATUTES
Mr. Chappell: When will the new Revised Statutes of Canada be available to replace the 1952 edition?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Manuscript for the new Revised Statutes of
May 14. 1969

Canada is now being sent to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau for composition of the draft Statute Roll. The production schedule calls for completion of master proof by October 31, 1969. Distribution would be expected to follow in two to three months if the Report of the Commissioners and draft Statute Roll are acceptable to the Governor in Council.


GRANTS TO INDIAN FELLOWSHIP CENTRES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,952
Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Does the Department ot the Secretary of State through the Citizenship Branch make grants to Indian Friendship Centres?
2 Are such grants made in accordance with the terms of agreements with the various provincial governments?
3.	If so, what is the nature of such agreements and by what means could they be modified?
4.	What are the names and locations of Friendship Centres to which grants have been made in 1963 and what amounts respectively were paid by the federal government to each?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to re-valuate the useful work accomplished by these Friendship Centres with a view to increasing the amounts paid thereto?


Gérard Pelletier: 1.	Yes.
2.	Partly. Agreements exist with three provinces. The other provinces have not signed agreements although they contribute to the centres operating within their boundaries.
3.	The federal and provincial government share costs on a 50-50 basis. The agreements can be modified on the initiative of the provincial government with the concurrence of the Secretary of State.
4.	Friendship House, 744 Fraser Street, Prince Rupert, British Columbia, $4,000; Port Alberni Friendship Centre, P.O. Box 23, 121-2nd Avenue North, Port Alberni, B.C., $4,000; Vancouver Indian Centre Society, 1655 West Broadway, Vancouver 9, B.C., $8,000; The Canadian Indian Centre of Toronto, 210 Beverly Street, Toronto 5, Ontario, $13,000; Indian Youth Friendship Centre, 138 Front Street, Port Arthur, Ontario, $5,000; Thunder-bird Friendship Centre, Geraldton, Ontario, $2,000; Parry Sound Friendship Centre, Parry Sound, Ontario, $4,000; Skookum Jim Hall, Whitehorse, Yukon, $1,000.
Grants to individual centres in Manitoba, Alberta and Saskatchewan have not been finalized. The maximum amount under the agreements with Manitoba and Alberta is $30,000 and in Saskatchewan $20,000.
5.	This matter is under consideration.
Questions


USE OF CANADIAN AIRSPACE BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,972
Mr. Lewis:: 1.	What is the policy of the government in relation to the use of our airspace for military purposes by foreign countries?
2.	Under what authority do United States military aircraft have permission to fly in Canadian airspace?
3.	What is the extent and nature of the control that Canada has over United States military aircraft flying in Canadian airspace?

Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question is as follows: 1. Military aircraft of foreign countries wishing to use Canadian airspace require Canadian government authorization.
2.	Order-in-Council PC 2307 of April 17, 1952.
3.	Aircraft belonging to and operated by the United States armed services are permitted to fly over, land in, and take off from Canadian territory on the basis of reciprocity, and in compliance with orders and directions issued by the Minister of National Defence under the order-in-council cited above.


POSTAL DELIVERY ON HOUSEHOLDER BASIS
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is free postal delivery provided on an individual householder basis in the urban centres of Canada?
2.	Is there a special charge for individual boxes in rural post offices?
3.	If the answer to parts 1 and 2 is "yes", what is the reason for the difference in the cost of service as between urban centres and rural centres?
4.	Has there been a recent increase in the cost of post office boxes in rural post offices and, if so, how much?
5.	Is the Post Office Department planning to provide improved postal service to rural communities by either (a) putting all householders on free rural route delivery, or (b) where this is not possible, providing free postal box service to those who have to drive long distances to pick up their mail?


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, as the answer to this question is also quite long, would the house agree to it being put

May 14, 1969
Questions
on the record and deemed to have been read?
1.	Yes. In communities of more than 2,000 householders.
2.	Yes.
3.	The Post Office Department provides free, three basic types of delivery; general delivery, rural delivery and letter carrier delivery. Because lock box service is an optional service, a fee is charged patrons who wish to avail themselves of this special service. Lock box fees in the urban centres are higher than in the rural centres because salary and accommodation costs are generally higher in the urban centres.
4.	Box rental fees were increased effective 1st February 1969 in both rural and urban
centres.	The fees	charged in	rural postoffices prior to and shown hereunder:	after the	increase areService	Former Fees	Present Fees All PatronsPatrons	Patrons	RentingResiding in	Residing	Boxes inNon-Letter	in Letter	Non-LetterCarrier	Carrier	CarrierDelivery	Delivery	DeliveryStyle of	Areas	Areas	Post OfficesPostal Box $	$	$A	2.00	6.00	4.00B	3.00	8.00	6.00C	5.00	10.00	10.00D	8.00	15.00	15.00E Bag	10.00	18.00	20.00Service 10.00	18.00	20.005.	(a) Yes, if requests are received from patrons concerned who qualify under existing criteria governing rural mail delivery, (b) No, as previously explained, this is an optional service.


ATTAINMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ARTISTIC STATUS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Is It the policy of the Canada Council to assist Canadian artists in attaining professional status?
2.	If so, what criteria are followed by the Council in making such awards?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The Canada Council's assistance to individual Canadian artists is mainly directed 
to the professional artist who has been practising his art for a good many years, and to the artist in the earlier stages of his professional career. However, (a) the Council also includes some young persons specially recommended by senior artists for very exceptional talent, and others taking advanced instruction in master classes; and (b) the Council gives assistance to organizations which provide national services in the development of young artists, such as the National School of the Theatre, the National Ballet School, the National Youth Orchestra.
2. The essential criterion used in making awards to persons mentioned in (a) above is that, in the opinion of the Council's expert advisors in each discipline, they have begun to show artistic merit and exceptional promise in their field.


SUBSIDIZING OF NATIONAL ARTS CENTRE PROGRAMS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Has the Canada Council allocated any funds to subsidize artistic programs being presented at the National Arts Centre during the two weeks following the opening of the National Arts Centre on June 2, 1969?
2.	If so, what is the amount that has been allocated for this purpose?
3.	Is it the intention of the Canada Council to continue to subsidize performances at the National Arts Centre and, if so, to what extent?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. The Canada Council has made the following grants which provide some direct or indirect contribution to the total costs of the National Arts Centre's opening Festival:
(i)	to the National Ballet Company, as a part of the company's new 69-70 season, for part of the production costs of the ballet Kraanerg which will receive its premiere in Ottawa;
(ii)	to the Theatre du Nouveau Monde, as a part of its regular 69-70 season, for part of the production costs of a musical version of Aristophanes' comedy Lysistrata which will receive its premiere in Ottawa; (iii) to the Vancouver Playhouse towards the costs of bringing to wider attention in Ottawa The Ecstasy of Rita Joe, a play by the Canadian author George Ryga which was presented during Vancouver's last season with assistance from the Canada Council; (iv) to the National Arts Centre for part of the preproduction cost of the new opera Orphee by the Canadian composer Gabriel Charpentier; (v) to the National Arts Centre for part of the preproduction cost of the new play Party
May 14, 1969

Game by the Canadian dramatist Jack Winter.
2.	The total amount allocated for: (a) new productions for the 1969-70 seasons of two established companies is $65,000; (b) touring of a new Canadian play is $15,000; (c) two new productions to be presented by the National Arts Centre itself is $20,000.
3.	The Canada Council will treat the resident organizations of the National Arts Centre like any such organizations in the country which present arts to the public, and will determine the amount of its subsidy in accordance with the kind of assistance it gives for similar work throughout Canada. In addition, some of the Council's assistance to organizations elsewhere for touring may be of indirect benefit to the National Arts Centre.


CANADA COUNCIL CLASSIFICATIONS
Mr. Nesbili: 1 How does the Canada Council define "professional" persons or groups?
2.	Have any persons or groups not defined by the Council as "professional" been given awards, grants, or other assistance during the last five years?
3.	If so, who are these persons or groups and what are their names and addresses?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. (a) Ideally, a professional artist is one who gains his whole livelihood by the exercise of his art or skill. For economic reasons, this ideal cannot always be achieved in Canada, and in some art forms very rarely anywhere in the world. The status must therefore be extended to artists who earn only a part of their livelihood by the exercise of their art and the remainder usually by related activities, but who are dedicated to an art rather than to the enjoyment of a pastime. For practical purposes the Council also includes some young persons specially recommended by senior artists for very exceptional talent, and others taking advanced instruction in master classes; (b) The Council defines professional groups as: (i) those which employ persons described in (a) above; or
(ii)	provide those same persons with their means of communication to the public; or
(iii)	provide services on a non-profit basis to such persons.
2. (a) No persons not defined in 1(a) above, or not representing the organizations listed in (b) below, have been given assistance; (b) The Council has given assistance during the last 5 years to some organizations which provide
Questions
professional services, on a national or large regional scale, to persons who are expected to reach professional status. These include: National School of the Theatre, 407 St. Lawrence Blvd., Montreal; National Ballet School, 111 Maitland Street, Toronto; National Youth Orchestra, 57 Bloor Street West, Toronto; Vancouver Opera Workshop, 856 Seymour Street, Vancouver; The New School of Art, 602A Markham Street, Toronto 4.
In addition, the Council has given limited assistance during the last 5 years to some organizations which, on a national or large regional scale, provide services to persons not necessarily expected to reach professional status, and to some major choral groups. These include: Dominion Drama Festival, 170 Metcalfe Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa 4; L'As-sociation Canadienne du Theatre Amateur, Centre Culturel, Cite des Jeunes, Vaudreuil, Que.; Canadian Federation of Music Festivals, 116 Edmonton St., Winnipeg 1, Man.; Canadian Society for Education through Art, c/o The Winnipeg School, Division No. 1, 1577, Wall St. E., Winnipeg 3, Man.; Maison des Etudiants in Paris, 31, boulevard Jourdain, Paris (XIVe); Federation of Amateur Cinematographers (travel grants only), Box 273, Youville Station, Montreal 11, Que.; Festival Singers of Toronto, 49 Wellington Street, Toronto 1, Ontario; Toronto Mendelssohn Choir, 49 Wellington Street, Room 38, Toronto 1, Ontario; Bach-Elgar Choir of Hamilton, P.O. Box 411, Hamilton, Ontario; Calgary Festival Chorus, c/o Mr. Michael Bancroft, Q.C., Suite 701, Britannia Building, Calgary 1, Alberta; Vancouver Bach Choir, 121 Rickman Place, New Westminster, B.C.; The Ottawa Choral Society, P.O. Box 952, Ottawa 4, Ontario; The Cantata Singers of Ottawa, c/o Mr. Brian Law, c/o St. Matthew's Church, Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario; La Chorale de l'Universite de Moncton, University de Moncton, Moncton, N.B.; The Handel Society of Music of New Westminster, 1265798th Street, North Surrey, B.C.; The Orpheus Choir of Toronto, 52 Cheritan Avenue, Toronto 12, Ontario; Tudor Singers of Montreal, P.O. Box 603, Station H, Montreal 25, P.Q.; Chamber Singers of U.B.C., Music Department, University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, B.C.
3. Addresses given in 2 above.


APPLICATIONS TO CANADA COUNCIL FOR GRANTS
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,999
Mr. Nesbitt:: 1.	Does the Canada Council keep a record of all applications for grants or assistance?

May 14, 1969
Questions
2.	Does the Canada Council acknowledge by letter, or otherwise, written applications for grants or assistance and if so, is a record kept of such acknowledgments?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. Yes.
2. Yes.


AWARDS TO &quot;TOWN FOOL&quot;
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many awards have been given to a person known as the "Town Fool" of Vancouver, B.C., and what is the total amount of these awards?
2.	Is the above-mentioned "Town Fool" categorized by the Council as a "professional" Fool or an "amateur" Fool?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. One of $3,500.
2. Mr. Joachim Foikis has revived an ancient form of art which was practised by professionals in the middle-ages and the Renaissance. His case is unique and experiments of this kind do not lend themselves to the usual distinctions.


AWARDS TO &quot;PIANO SMASHER&quot;
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many awards were given to a person known as the "Piano-smasher", and what is the total amount of these awards?
2.	Is the above-mentioned "Piano-smasher" categorized as a "professional" Piano-smasher or an "amateur" Piano-smasher?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: 1. One travel grant of $284 was paid to a Vancouver art gallery to cover the cost of the return air fare from New York to Vancouver for the artist Ralph Ortiz.
2. Mr. Ortiz is considered to be a professional artist.


RESTRICTIONS ON CANADA COUNCIL GRANTS
Mr. Nesbitt: Is the Canada Council restricted to awarding grants or other assistance to "professional" persons or groups and, if so, by what authority?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: The Council is not restricted by law. But the limited funds available to the Council for the arts force it, in the economic interest of Canada's professional artists and their public, to give much less assistance in the 
non-professional field than the Council would wish.


* TICKET SUBSIDIES PAID BY CENTENNIAL COMMISSION
Mr. McCleave: Did ticket subsidies have to be paid by the Centennial Commission to (a) the Don Messer Jubilee (b) any other group mentioned in the answer to question 639?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, ticket subsidies were awarded under a cost sharing program agreed to between the Centennial Commission and the participating provinces.
The Commission paid its contribution directly to the provinces which managed themselves the aid program concerning such tickets.


CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER NORTHERN REGION
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Are negotiations being conducted between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America with respect to sovereignty over Canada's northern region and, if so, what exactly are the details of the negotiations between the two countries?
2.	Are there oil deposits in the islands which are the subject of such negotiations?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. No.
2. In view of the negative reply to part 1 above, the reply to part 2 addresses itself only to the general question whether there are oil deposits in the Canadian Arctic islands. There have been no oil discoveries to date in these islands, but geological conditions prevailing in Canada's Arctic archipelago are similar to those in other oil-bearing regions.


VIOLENCE IN TELEVISION PROGRAMMING
Mr. Mather: 1.	Is the Government of Canada considering a study of violence in television programming and its effects on viewers, especially children?
2.	Has the C.B.C. ever undertaken such a study and, if so, what were the results, and will this report be tabled in Parliament?
3.	Is the C.B.C. presently undertaking such a study and, if so, when is it expected that this study will be completed?


Gérard Pelletier: 1. No. I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 2 and 3. The C.B.C. is not engaged in any formal
May 14, 1969

study of violence in television programming. The C.B.C. defined some years ago a general policy in this field for the guidance of its program officers. The Corporation has been and still is fully conscious of the problem.
Feature films and program series on a number of occasions have been refused because of their violent character. Assurances have been received from U.S. network officials, in informal discussions, that officers concerned with program standards and practices are under strict instruction to be on guard against the undue and unnecessary exploitation of violence in television programming. In the last new months, in the light of studies developed recently in America or abroad, a review of C.B.C. policy has been taking place.


'GANDER-ALLEGED DENIAL OF LANDING RIGHTS TO R.A.F.
Mr. McGrath: Was the United Kingdom denied landing rights for RAF planes at Gander International Airport during the Anguilla affair and, if so, how long did this prohibition remain in effect?


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. Landing rights at Gander for British military aircraft, which derive from long standing reciprocal arrangements between Canada and Britain, were not denied to Britain during the Anguilla operation. However, it was indicated to the British government that the Canadian government would prefer that alternative arrangements be made, should this be possible.


COMMENTS ON CANCELLATION OF DON MESSER SHOW
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	What amount of mail or number telephone calls has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation received with respect to the cancellation of the Don Messer show and how much was (a) favourable (b) unfavourable?
2.	What attempt was made to assess the importance to the viewing public of the Don Messer show prior to its cancellation?
3.	In what way were the performers informed of the show's cancellation?
4.	In light of public reaction, what provision is the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation making for either the resumption of the Don Messer show in its regular format or production of a new show with the same basic cast?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1.
Questions
Approximate total national mail and telephone calls as of May 1st:
Favourable Unfavourable Mail	45	5200Telephone Calls	45	14002.	The week-by-week reactions of the viewing public to the Don Messer show, and indeed to all C.B.C. network programs, are kept under continuing study by the C.B.C. research department. In the case of the Don Messer program, one of the factors taken into consideration was the gradual decline in the size of the audience in recent years, particularly from mid-season on; another factor was the age structure of the Don Messer audience. This and other relevant information was fully reviewed prior to the show's cancellation.3.	Don Messer was informed of the network decision verbally by the producer in Halifax and by letter from the network office.4.	The decision already announced relates to the national network (English) only; possible alternatives are still being examined but no decisions regarding these have yet been reached.


WYNYARD, SASK.,-LEASING OF OFFICE SPACE
Mr. Burton: 1 Is the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development leasing office space in the Town of Wynyard and, if so, from whom is this space leased?
2.	What is the amount of space being leased?
3.	What is the term of the lease?
4.	What is the amount of the lease rental and any other charges?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, from Wynyard Stern Motors Ltd., 1370 Mathers Bay, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
2.	1610 square feet net.
3.	Terms of lease: February 1, 1969 to January 31, 1970, and month to month thereafter.
4.	Lease rental: $3600. per annum ($2.24 per sq. ft.); Other charges: Cleaning-$125. monthly by a separate contract not with the Lessor. Electricity-$13. monthly (approximate average).


APPLICATION OF INCOME TAX TO TRADE TOOLS
Mr. Gleave: Is the government considering designating the amount that a workman pays for his tools as deductable for income tax purposes in the following trades (a) automobile mechanics (b) carpenters and woodworkers (c) plumbers (d) miners?

May 14, 1969
Questions


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: This is a matter of Government policy. If the Government should decide to propose an amendment to the Income Tax Act to grant a deduction for expenditures of this kind it will be announced at the appropriate time.


BASIS OF DON MESSER SHOW PERFORMANCES
Mr. McCleave: How many years has the Don Messer Show been carried on national television (a) sponsored (b) sustaining basis?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the C.B.C. that the program has been fully sponsored since it was first carried regularly on the national TV network in the fall of 1959, except for two seasons in 1966-67, when it was sponsored on 35 out of 40 occasions, and in the current season when it was sponsored on 34 out of 40 occasions.


PILOTS FOR ZAMBIA
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Has the Government of Canada been asked if it would train pilots for the Government of Zambia?
2 If so, has the Government of Canada agreed to do so, does it intend to do so, or does it intend to not grant the request?
3.	Does the Government of Canada supply any military aid to Zambia?
4.	Does the Government of Canada supply any military aid to Portugal?


Mitchell William Sharp: Insofar as the Department of External Affairs is concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	This request is at present under consideration.
3.	Yes, the Canadian Government has trained a small number of infantry officer cadets over the past few years and one officer has attended the Canadian Forces Staff School.
4.	No, not since Canadian NATO mutual aid to Portugal was terminated in 1961.


NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Coates: What are the names and salaries of the Chairman and General Manager of the National Capital Commission?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The annual salary of Mr. A. John Frost, Chairman of the National Capital Commission is $26,500.
[Mr. Gleave.l
The annual salary of Mr. Eric W. Thrift, General Manager of the National Capital Commission is $22,680.


IMMIGRATION APPEAL BOARD
Mr. Coates: What is the name and salary of the Chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The name of the Chairman of the Immigration Appeal Board is Miss Janet V. Scott. The salary of the Chairman is $22,000 per annum.


TRAINING OF MILITARY CADETS
Mr. Burton: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent by the Government of Canada during 1967-68 fiscal year in the training of military cadets?
2.	What was the total amount of capital and operating expenditures incurred during 1967-68 fiscal year in conjunction with each military college operated in Canada?
3.	What was the total amount of money spent in 1967-68 fiscal year on scholarships and other assistance for members of the armed forces to attend university or other advanced educational institutions?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Estimated costs for 1967-68 are as follows: 1. $13,608,000.
2.
Name of Service College	Capital	Personnel Operating and Maintenance
Royal Military		
College	$40,000	$ 5,080,000
College militaire		
royal	20,000	3,456,000Royal Roads	6,000	2,224,000Totals	$66,000	$10,760,000
3. $3,489,000.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Skoberg: 1.	For the fiscal years 1966-67, 1967-68, what outside consultant studies have been undertaken or are presently in progress sponsored by the Department of Public Works?
2.	What was the cost for each outside consultant study prepared for the Department and were the contracts from the Department awarded by competitive tendering and, if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.
May 14, 1969


SUPPORT OF GRADUATE STUDENTS
Mr. Lewis: 1.	(a) What is the current government policy with regard to the support of Canadian graduate students engaged in graduate programs at universities outside Canada (b) what is the current policy of the Canada Council with regard to the support of Canadian graduate students engaged in graduate programs at universities outside Canada (c) what is the current policy of the National Research Council with regard to the support of Canadian graduate students engaged in graduate programs at universities outside Canada (d) do any of the current policies in (a), (b), (c) above represent a significant change from previous policies governing the same subject and, if so, in what respect and for what reasons?
2.	(a) How many Canadian graduate students (i)
were engaged in graduate programs outside of Canada (ii) were engaged in graduate programs in Canada, in each of the following academic years:	1963-64,	1964-65,	1965-66,	1966-67,	1967-68,
1968-69 (b) for each of the same years, in each of the categories (i) and (ii) above, how many of the students received assistance in the form of loans, bursaries or scholarships from the federal government or agencies created by the federal government (c) how many students in each of the categories (i) and (ii) above is it anticipated will receive assistance from the federal government or agencies created by the federal government in the academic years 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72?
3.	Approximately how many places for graduate students (a) in the arts and social sciences (b) in the physical sciences, natural sciences and engineering (c) in total, will be available in Canadian universities in the academic years 1969-70, 1970-71 1971-72?
Return tabled.


BY-LAWS IN PURSUANCE OF CANADA COUNCIL ACT
Mr. Nesbitt: Have any by-laws been passed by the Canada Council in pursuance of Section 10 of the Canada Council Act and if so, what are these by-laws?
Return tabled.



MONTHLY INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Yves Forest: Mr. Motions for Papers
Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 136 and 150 for the production of papers are acceptable to the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that notices of motions Nos. 136 and 150 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


FARM CREDIT LOANS TO INDIANS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 136-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of an agreement between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Farm Credit Corporation to provide for long-term loans to Indians farming on reserves as announced by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on May 1, 1969.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 150-Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all conventions and agreements signed by or on behalf of the Government of Canada at the conclusion of the 1968 Conference at the Hague on private international law.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Notice of motion No. 118 is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning privileged papers and authorization of the government authorities concerned.


INDIAN EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all the educational programs referred to by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in answer to Question No. 1,448, appearing in Hansard, April 23, 1969, Pages 7844-7845.
Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 118 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 14. 1969
Motions for Papers
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call notices of motions Nos. 91, 121, 122, 123, 135, and 148?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


QUEEN ELIZABETH TELESCOPE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the cost-benefit study on the Queen Elizabeth telescope project referred to by the President of the Treasury Board in Hansard on March 19, 1969, page 6842.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I had a conversation with the hon. member for Winnipeg North and explained to him that there was no such document as requested. I would therefore ask that he withdraw his motion.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the minister did have a conversation with me, but having checked the Hansard reference it seems obvious to me that the minister created the impression that a cost-benefit study had in fact been prepared. The minister now says one has not. Since there is this difference of opinion and I am dissatisfied, I should like this transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 48 this notice of motion is transferred to notices of motions (papers).


Mr. Speaker:: Number 121.


Some hon. Members:: Stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Number 122.


Some hon. Members:: Stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Number 123.


Some hon. Members:: Stands.


KATES, PEAT AND WARWICK POST OFFICE STUDY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 135-Mr. Macquarrie:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study commissioned with Kates, Peat and Warwick by the Post Office Department on September 23, 1968, and completed November 19, 1968.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report as follows: I understand that the Minister of Communications has discussed this notice of motion with 
the hon. member and the hon. member has agreed to withdraw his notice since the document does not contain information of interest to the public that would justify the expense involved in preparing the document for publication. The minister will shortly make public the list of specific studies under way into the Post Office, which was, I believe, the circumstance which originally interested the hon. member in this document.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion shall be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


WHITE PAPER ON WOODS REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 148
Mr. Dinsdale:: That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all communications from Veterans and Veterans organizations protesting the government's long delay in presenting the White Paper on the Wood's Committee Report and the government's replies thereto.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I wish to report as follows: The hon. member for Brandon-Souris has let us know that the communications he refers to in his motion are those directed to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of National Defence and the office of the Prime Minister. The minister will therefore be happy to request that a search be made and to return any communications that have been received protesting the alleged delay in presenting the white paper on the Woods Committee report.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the house that notice of motion No. 148 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce legislation which
May 14, 1969	COMMONS
would provide money from the federal government through provincial governments to enable municipalities to buy and service land for housing development?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is anticipating somewhat the housing debate. That legislation is before the house and we have indicated that it will be announced as one of the next items on the order of business. I therefore hope the hon. gentleman will be patient until the minister makes his speech when presenting the legislation to the house.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am a very patient man but this point is not included within the bill. By way of supplementary question may I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether the government is reconsidering its rejection of the land bank proposal of the Hellyer task force? Will the Prime Minister say if the government is considering some modification of that proposal when the matter is presented to the house?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker,
everything will not be in the bill. Part of this matter will be government policy. Part of it will be implemented without there being any need for changes in the legislation. Those are the matters the minister will be discussing with the house when he presents the bill next week, hopefully, for second reading.



REQUEST FOR PRIORITY IN DEBATE OF LEGISLATION

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Prime Minister which arises out of the announcement of house business made yesterday. It is apparent that the first piece of major legislation to be dealt with is the official languages bill. While we in this party are anxious to promote linguistic equality in this country I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he will not consider giving top priority to legislation dealing with housing, industrial incentives and agricultural matters which demand immediate attention, if the house is to deal with them during the present session of parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have considered the matter and realize the importance of these economic matters. Two factors have entered into our decision here. The first is that the minister is a new minister, and we wanted to make sure
DEBATES	8687
Inquiries of the Ministry that he had time not only to familiarize himself with the workings of that part of the government's operation, but also that he had time to present the kinds of changes the opposition is suggesting we should consider in our housing policy. The second is that, although some people are waiting for action in these economic fields, it is also true that other people have been waiting for 100 years for the government to act in the area of languages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO ASSIST PRAIRIE FARMERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the serious situation on the prairies as a result of declining quotas and reduced prices, has the government proceeded far enough with its review of this problem to be able to assure the house that some legislation will be introduced or that some announcement of policy will be made during the present session to cope with the matter?


Mr. Speaker:: I am doubtful whether this is a valid supplementary, but the question having been asked, I will allow it.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: would like to ask a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the question. Perhaps the minister responsible might wish to reply to the question asked by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If I may repeat the question, Mr. Speaker. I was asking the question because we are dealing with the house business for the balance of the session. I ask the Prime Minister if the government intends prior to the end of this session to introduce legislation or make any announcement of policy with a view to helping the prairie farmers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has commented upon and answered this type of question many times in the past week. I have nothing to add.
May 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-SALES AT PRICES COMPETITIVE WITH FRANCE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Prime Minister would take this suggestion: In view of the fact we have a billion bushels piled up in the prairies and nothing is being done or said to help the situation, wouM the Prime Minister now consider trying to make a deal with the proper sales staff through the Wheat Board to sell this grain by matching the price at which France is selling wheat, in order to get some cash on the farms?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, just two days ago the right hon. member for Prince Albert was chiding the minister for selling the wheat at a price below the grain agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister is again misrepresenting that statement by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. The Prime Minister knows that is a lie.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have no intention of sitting down because you say so.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member is using words which, as an experienced counsel and member of the house, he knows he cannot use. It is obvious no member can accuse another member, even if he is the Prime Minister, of telling a lie. I think the hon. member may wish to alter or use other language. I suggest to the hon. member his words are not parliamentary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would say those facts he set out are lies, and that is as far as I am going to go.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the cooperation of the hon. member. He knows what the rules of the house are. I am sure he wants to co-operate with the Chair and with all hon. members in using words which are parliamentary. I ask him very humbly to cooperate with the Chair in this regard.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, I would like to hear the Prime Minister, with the greatest respect to Your Honour, quote from Hansard to show
IMr. Trudeau.l
that the right hon. member for Prince Albert said what the Prime Minister said he did. If the right hon. member for Prince Albert did not say it, then it is certainly an untruth.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to insist there must be order in the house. There must be some respect for the rules of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, let's have the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: One of the most elementary matters in debate in the House of Commons is that hon. members should use discretion in their use of words. I do not think the hon. member meant to use the word he did. I again ask the hon. member, in the light of his experience in parliament and in the light of his long experience in court, for his co-operation. The hon. member knows he would not be able to say this in a court of law. As this is the highest court of the land, the hon. member owes it to his professional training and to his status as a senior member of this house to co-operate with the Chair and indicate his words have gone beyond his thought.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have had a lot of counsel work around me, but I say this, that there are many examples in this House of Commons and you, with the greatest respect, know it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if the rump would just restrain itself.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members to give some assistance to the Chair. This is a serious matter. The hon. member is entitled to express his views. I certainly am very anxious to hear him and he knows I have always attempted to co-operate with him, and I would ask him to do the same with the Chair.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, you always give all hon. members that kind of encouragement they need. I have always respected the kind of wisdom that comes from the Chair, but I would say to you, with the greatest respect, that it is correct that I have sat in this house for a number of years. I have heard the same expressions used on many occasions. I have not called the Prime Minister the word, and I will not use it, that implies a person who tells lies. I have merely said that those facts were untrue.
May 14, 1969


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if you would restrain yourselves.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. gentleman is now coming rather close to my understanding of what this situation ought to be. We all know that hon. members often say that the statements made by another hon. member are incorrect or untrue. What we cannot say is that the words that have been uttered were wilfully and deliberately untrue. I am sure that this is perhaps in the sense that the hon. member said these words and I would ask him to confirm this so that I may sleep more easily tonight.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I accept your ruling in that regard, sir.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, for my part I might say it is sometimes difficult to understand the inference in the questions or in the remarks. I understand the hon. member said I told a lie but that I was not a liar.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes he did; but, Mr. Speaker, the same thing arises with the matter under discussion. I am told that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did not say what I said he did. I would like to refer hon. members to Hansard at page 8627, just a day ago, May 13, when this question was addressed by the right hon. member to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin):
Having regard to Canada's strong objection to sales of wheat being made below the I.G.A. price, would the minister say whether Canada itself at the present time is doing just that namely, selling below the price agreed internationally?
The minister agreed that Canada was doing that, and so the right hon. member said:
I should like the minister to differentiate between an offence being committed because the difference involved is larger or smaller than the amount agreed to.
If this means anything at all it means that the right hon. member was telling the minister that by Canada selling below the I.G.A. price he was playing on subtleties and committing an offence against the agreement by the fact that he was selling a little below it; and now the Opposition are telling the house that we should sell below the agreed price. I believe they will have to make up their minds on this.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Prime Minister would want to be fair. Surely all he has done today is deal with a question of interpretation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is his interpretation. I put another interpretation on the words. What I would say is that the right hon. member for Prince Albert did not say what the Prime Minister charged him with today, and in that regard I am proud to defend my leader-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: - my former leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before we
embark on another question of privilege-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I say just one word. I should like to have an opportunity perhaps to bring to an end the discussion we have had during the last few minutes. I think, for the record, it should be assumed that the word used by the hon. member has been withdrawn. I should like the rule established-if there is no other rule in the house-that at least this one word should be banned from those expressions normally used in the House of Commons.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -I rise as a humble member of the house to ask a supplementary question directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises out of the question asked by the leader of the New Democratic party but follows up a question I directed to the government house leader yesterday. I should like to ask the minister whether he can inform the house when legislation will be introduced with regard to industrial incentives. I ask this urgent question in view of the reported gap involved in the phasing out of the existing incentive program and the introduction of a new program. Can the

May 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry minister inform the house when this legislation will be introduced and whether it will be dealt with before the summer adjournment.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I indicated several months ago that I was hopeful the bill would be introduced in May. I am still hoping this can be done before the end of this session.



APPOINTMENT OF ATLANTIC ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister can inform the house when the remaining members of the Atlantic Advisory Council will be appointed, with the hope that it may be shortly in order that they can consider this and other legislative measures to effectively assist the region.


Jean Marchand: As we promised, Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding through consultation with all those concerned, with all the provinces. That is why it takes a little time to appoint the Council, but I hope this will be done within a relatively short time.



AIR CANADA


Mr. Sfanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. My question is based on or prompted by statements made by Mr. Yves Pratt, chairman of the board of Air Canada, but in accordance with the rules I shall put my question to the minister directly. Is it government policy that Air Canada should seek additional routes around the world but cut back on its feeder and other domestic services within Canada.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker; it is not government policy.



STRIKE OF MECHANICS-INQUIRY AS TO PROGRESS IN NEGOCIATIONS

Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Transport is in the 
house, will he tell us today if the negotiations are progressing in the dispute between Air Canada and its employees and if he expects a settlement before long?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would think this might more properly be directed to the Minister of Labour.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for having directed my question to the Minister of Transport. I would like now to put it to the Minister of Labour who could perhaps answer it.


Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can tell the house is that negotiations between Air Canada and the particular union involved began at eleven o'clock this morning and to the best of my knowledge are proceeding in very orderly fashion.



AIR TRANSPORT


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, in light of the suggestions allegedly made by the chairman of Air Canada to the effect that one air line, presumably Air Canada, should represent Canada on international routes, will the Minister of Transport ask his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he will continue to press New Zealand to review its decision to cancel Canadian Pacific Airlines rights to land in that country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I had a supplementary question and I believe the minister was rising to make a reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question I heard the hon. member ask was that he was asking the minister to tell something to another minister, and I did not think, on that basis, the question was acceptable.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order and with great respect I suggest there was a bit of a
May 14, 1969



conversation going on in the house at the time and therefore I can understand why Your Honour might not have heard the question. If not now, perhaps Your Honour might see me shortly so that I could restate the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might restate the question. I hope it will not be in the same words.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank Your Honour very much. In the light of the suggestions attributed to the chairman of Air Canada to the effect that one air line, presumably Air Canada, should represent Canada on international routes will the Minister of Transport discuss with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether or not he will continue to press New Zealand to review its decision to cancel Canadian Pacific Airlines rights to land in that country and will it be government policy to press this matter on behalf of Canadian Pacific Airlines in view of this announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: I would think my original ruling was correct. I believe I heard the question correctly in the first instance. I would suggest to the hon. member that I will return to him later on. He may have a third opportunity to ask the question in restated terms.



LANDING RIGHTS AT TORONTO FOR INTERNATIONAL CARRIERS

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or perhaps related question which I should like to direct to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister say whether he has received representations from groups in Toronto asking that foreign air lines be given landing rights in Toronto on a temporary basis, and if so what reply he intends to make on behalf of the government.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, such representations have been received. The reply is that the matter is being referred to the Canadian Transport Commission.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services or the Minister of National Defence. Is the minister in a position to confirm that the contract for
Inquiries of the Ministry the annual refit of the Bonaventure won by the Saint John yard has now been cancelled.


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we can refer to that as a contract. We have decided not to follow on the bid that was proposed. We have decided instead that we would do the minimum necessary overhaul and repair at the naval dockyard at Halifax, as a measure of economy.


Thomas Miller Bell: Since the Saint John yard had the lowest tender and since it had the realistic tender on the previous Bonaventure refit- and I am looking at the President of the Treasury Board when I say that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: -and since there is tremendous dislocation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member look at the Chair, so that I may have an opportunity to ask him to put a question.


Thomas Miller Bell: Excuse me for getting excited about this, Mr. Speaker, but will the minister give every assurance there will not be any contracting out of this nature to anyone else, unless it is a tender job, in view of what has gone on in respect of the Bonaventure matter.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of National Defence understand that the main dock at the Saint John shipyard has been reserved for the Bonaventure since the opening of bids early in April, and that other ships have been turned away including a laker, a ferry and two tankers in contemplation of receiving this contract? What is the government going to do about this?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I think my responsibility in this regard is to look after the Bonaventure, not more than that. We are trying today to do everything necessary to keep that ship afloat and operational under the present austerity program.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax Easi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence for the purpose of clarifying this matter. Inasmuch as it is now over two years since the Bonaventure has been out of the water, and I say this with apologies to the gallery, to have her bottom scraped, will the minister indicate how much longer it will take before this is done? Let me remind the

May 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry house that last spring this was promised in the fall.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It will be done immediately, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkion-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he has received word from Canairelief concerning the destruction of a C-97 relief plane on Thursday, May 8 and, if so, what action has the minister taken?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, there was a plane of the Canadian International Red Cross destroyed as well as the plane mentioned by him. I think this is very unfortunate. These pilots fly at very great risk to themselves in an area of warfare. In so far as the two parties in the war are concerned, they are trying to give protection, but sometimes they are not successful. I really do not know that there is very much more the Canadian government can be expected to do than to urge the best possible arrangements for the delivery of relief supplies, which would include daylight flights with greatly reduced chance of loss.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, is it now the intention of the minister to make further representations to the Nigerian government asking it to eliminate the strafing and bombing of relief planes in order that these relief deliveries may be unmolested?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is very difficult to differentiate between arms planes and relief planes which fly in at night. I hope my hon. friend will urge everyone concerned to authorize daylight flights. This would substantially reduce the chances of loss.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a repetition of the question I asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance yesterday. I seek information as to any restriction the minister may have in mind in proposals to the International Monetary Fund in respect of the flow of hot money, and steps that might be taken to avert these recurring international crises based on speculation.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I previously indicated, the central banks have indicated in each situation they would look at the particular facts in an attempt to discourage flows of so-called hot money by re-routing the flow of funds back to the countries of origin.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, has the minister proposed anything in the nature of a special tax on the entry or speculative incidence of these transactions, so as to discourage this type of speculation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the flow to which my hon. friend has referred is the flow into Germany. I have seen indications of what the German government intends to do in this regard. I have no additional information beyond that which has been given in the press.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. E. Brown (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State to advise the house whether it is true that advertising in respect of pipe tobacco and cigars has been forbidden on programs of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as well as advertising in respect of cigarettes?


Gérard Pelletier: The answer is yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to suggest to the hon. member that he cannot ask whether a statement is true or untrue, but I gather he has obtained the information he was seeking.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the Secretary of State in Montreal recently, that his department is conducting a review of the Citizenship Act which will "go back to first principles", and because of the basic importance of this matter to all Canadians, will he take an early opportunity to table or state his view of "first principles" of Canadian citizenship on which this review is apparently proceeding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the question is acceptable only in the sense
May 14. 1969

that the hon. member is asking whether a statement will be made on motions. With this restriction in mind the question will be allowed.


Gérard Pelletier: It is a suggestion which I am ready to consider, Mr. Speaker.



THE MINISTRY


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, and I refer to the same occasion in Montreal. Was the Secretary of State expressing government policy when he said in Montreal that he often considers the Department of the Secretary of State as a federal ministry of cultural affairs and, if so, is it the intention to change the name of the department formally in order that this intention may be explicit?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes to the first part and no to the second part.



HARBOURS


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, anticipating your usual understanding and benevolence, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact the government is committed to constructing a third crossing over the inner harbour at Vancouver, and of the special engineering report, which is now several weeks overdue, according to the contract let with this company last August, can the minister now state when the report is now expected, so that local planning can take place and the calling for tenders can proceed without further undue delay?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. member the fact that this work is being undertaken by the National Harbours Board. The minister who answers for that board is the Minister of Transport.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of that answer, and I understood this was within the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, may I direct this question to the Minister of Trans-
Inquiries of the Ministry port, anticipating the same confusion created in the past in respect of other matters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot answer with that degree of co-operation indicated by the hon. member. I can only say that I intend to go personally to Vancouver to get a firsthand view and a clear picture of the situation, in order that matters may proceed without undue delay.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Henry Lalulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
It seems that homosexuality is taking alarming proportions in Montreal. Could the minister tell the house whether he has received representations from the parents of the young man who died from sexual overexertion at Montreal's Queen Elizabeth on April 3 and whether he will intervene in this case to bring to light the motives of that crime?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am under the
impression that the hon. member is bringing to the question period the subject of the debate that has been on for a few days and that will be carried on this afternoon.
If there is some urgency with respect to the particular point he is raising, the matter could be brought up at the time of adjournment.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (Si. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether, in view of the pending appointment of a prices and incomes commission and amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, it is his intention to recommend the setting up of a special parliamentary committee?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to clear up the implication in the question that both these are pending at the same rate. I hope to announce very shortly the appointment of the prices and incomes

May 14, 19G9
Inquiries of the Ministry commission. The revision of the Combines Investigation Act will commence after I receive the report of the Economic Council of Canada which, as I told the house the other day, I hope to receive in June. So I do not see that it would be appropriate at this time to appoint a special committee for the purpose suggested by the hon. member.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since it is sometimes a custom to commemorate long awaited events of national importance, is it the intention of the minister to recommend the issuance of a stamp or in some other way commemorate the final appointment of the commission, when it is announced?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TRAIL, B.C.-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FINANCIAL AID

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. In view of the fact that it is almost three weeks since the disastrous flood hit the Trail area, and in view of the fact that there is increasing urgency for the committee dealing with flood disasters to know what financial resources will be available to them for rehabilitation purposes, may I again ask the minister whether the house can expect a statement this week on the federal government's contribution to the disaster fund?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the hon. member asked the same question yesterday, but in all honesty I forget what the answer was.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There was no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be better to allow the question today.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I expect that a reply from the government will be available shortly.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On
March 19 of this year I asked a question which in the absence of the minister that day his parliamentary secretary took as notice. The question as it appears at page 6815 of Hansard was as follows:
In view of some divergence of views on the medical manpower situation, the apparent jungle of indecision and the extreme urgency of this problem if medical schools are to operate during the summer months, would the minister state whether he has discussed this urgent problem with the ministers concerned in the provincial governments?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Naiional Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member is no doubt aware, we have constituted several task forces which are manned by highly competent personnel from both the provinces and the federal government, to study this very question. I expect their recommendations within the next couple of months.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the minister whether this task force will bring in a report soon enough for the schools to go into operation.


John Carr Munro: I think that the question of medical schools operating in the summer is not dependent on what the task force recommends. The schools are there and are manned by personnel now. If they decide as a matter of policy to operate this summer, I do not see anything to stop them.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I just want to suggest to the minister that they cannot operate without funds.



COMBINES


Mr. Ray Perrault (Burnaby-Seymour):: have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that the task force on sport has made certain proposals with respect to the National Hockey League and its reserve clause, can the minister tell the house whether he is considering action under the Combines Investigation Act which would serve to abolish the reserve clause?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, of
course the task force report on sport was given to my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is in charge of

May 14, 1969

bringing forward recommendations on this subject to the government. In so far as the report falls within my jurisdiction, may I say that I have referred it to the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act and, should any changes in the act be indicated, we will consider them when we revise the act after receipt of the report on competition being prepared by the Economic Council of Canada.
I think however that the parliamentary committee, which will in due course be looking at the revised Combines Investigation Act, will be interested in knowing at that time to what extent the National Hockey League has paid attention to the recommendations in the task force report.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that undue delay in the receipt of cheques for unemployment insurance benefits is causing difficulties for social and family services at many points across the country, will the minister look into the possibility of having unemployment insurance cheques forwarded more promptly.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Blame the Post Office.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Information from the Unemployment Insurance Commission indicates that cheques are being received three or four days faster than was the case a year ago. However if the hon. gentleman has a specific case in mind and would care to present it to the Minister of Labour, I will be glad to intervene personally.



TELEVISION


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. It concerns circumstances under which television stations may be sold. Has the Canadian Radio-Television Commission received new directions from the government which would now enable one member of the C.T.V. network to buy another station of that network?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It seems to me that the question as asked is argumentative. If there is urgency the hon. member may want to have the subject matter debated at the time of adjournment.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker? My question is not argumentative but rather asks whether there has been a change in government direction to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission. It was not meant to be argumentative but simply to elicit information.



INCOME TAX


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. The Economic Council has set new poverty levels at $1,800 a year for single persons and $3,000 for married couples. Will the minister in preparing his new budget consider raising income tax exemption levels from $1,000 for single persons and $2,000 for married couples who have survived 21 years of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made a suggestion which she must assume will be considered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
certainly hope so.



QUEBEC-INQUIRY AS TO SUBSIDIZATION OF AMATEUR PROGRAM

Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolietie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since he met with the Quebec Minister of Tourism last week to discuss amateur sports, could he say whether an agreement has been reached and, if so, what is the amount of the grant?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions. I hope that within the next week or so I will be in a position to announce the decision at which the government has arrived as a result of these discussions.

May 14, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry THE BUDGET



INQUIRY AS TO PROBABLE DATE OF PRESENTATION

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister indicate now on what date his budget presentation will be made, and what form that presentation will take?


Edgar John Benson: It
will be some time early in June.


John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure the house that there will be full opportunity for a debate of his presentation?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is determined by the rules of the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of statements attributed to officials of the department that AWACS will need the use of Canadian air bases to be effective. In the light of the remarks attributed to the minister himself, that he favours Canadian participation in AWACS, will he say whether the government has made a decision with regard to the use of the Canadian bases by the United States in this connection?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: No, Mr. Speaker. No decision on this is required at this time because, as the hon. member knows, this is a project for the future and is not yet ready to operate. Therefore we have no decision to make at the present tune.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of National Defence say whether the matter is under consideration, so that a decision will be available at the time it is required.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: At the present time it is under consideration at the research and development level. That is all.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise briefly on a point of 
order having to do with an item of house business. I might have raised it during the question period except for the fact that the government house leader is away and so is the acting government house leader. My point of order relates to the fact that there are now over 20 questions, and perhaps more have been added today, that have piled up for the adjournment debate, and I wonder whether there could be a discussion rather than a decision at this point on the possibility of using the private members hour on Friday or finding some other appropriate time so that we might dip into this backlog of questions, and so that the questions members wish to deal with on the late show can be put on a more up to date basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member is a very valuable one inasmuch as it is embarrassing for the Chair to suggest that questions may be discussed at the time of adjournment because of the backlog that has accumulated. Perhaps the Chair might take the initiative in communicating with hon. members in an effort to find a way to solve that problem.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, May 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner that Bill C-150, to amend the Criminal Code, the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and to make certain consequential amendments to the Combines Investigation Act, the Customs Tariff and the National Defence Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, be read the third time and do pass, and the amendment of Mr. Matte.
Mr. Andre Foriin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we undertook a debate on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) to postpone the application of Bill C-150 for a six-month period.
We thought fit to bring forward this amendment for several reasons and we had the opportunity to explain them in this house. Several members of our group have spoken on this amendment, indicating the reasons why we wanted to delay the implementation of this legislation.
Since this debate began, we have been able to express our dissatisfaction regarding this
Mar 14, 1969

legislation. We have been able to explain the reasons why we were opposed with all our might to the implementation of this legislation, namely because we believe that the population does not want it and that everyone of us here has a heavy responsibility as far as legislation is concerned. And if there is a piece of legislation whose consequences will be serious, it is indeed this one.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we have known since last night that the committee on regional development, composed of 20 members, will leave the capital Monday night on a study tour. We anticipated that the vote would be taken on the amendment and on the main motion on Tuesday, since Monday is a holiday.
In view of the fact that Thursday is an opposition day and that Friday is a rather short day, it would have been easy for us of the Ralliement creditiste to line up several speakers in order that they express their views on the matter.
As far as I know, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe), the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault), the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Rodrigue), the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne) and the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), could speak again on that matter. The debate could last until Tuesday; however, that would be anti-democratic, for the simple reason that two main things matter in this house, that is first, to discuss legislation and second, to vote.
Now, as we would like the question to be put this afternoon, we are ready to give up our time for that purpose and to allow all hon. members to vote according to their conscience this afternoon not only on the very good amendment moved by the hon. member for Champlain but also on the main motion, for we are anxious to know the opinion of each member, in particular the opinion of those on the government side, on the matter.
It would be regrettable to allow these hon. members to abstain from participating in a vote which could be taken Tuesday, and thus deprive the population from knowing how each hon. member would have voted.
I therefore conclude my remarks even if I have still a few minutes to speak and even if there are still about ten of our members who were most willing to take the floor in order to allow everyone to vote according to
Criminal Code
his conscience, not only on the amendment brought in by the hon. member for Champlain but on the main motion.
It is important that hon. members should vote and we do not want them to dodge their responsibilities. That is why we are taking that position.


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker for having accepted to cut short a little his remarks on the amendment of his colleague and on the main motion, that is on third reading of that bill.
I have decided to shorten my last comments quite a bit in order to enable hon. members to be called and vote, so that the Canadian public and parliament will know the views of all hon. members on that basic question, resting on the most important principles which we have had to discuss in the history of this parliament and previous ones.
Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. I would like, however, since it is my last opportunity to do so, to thank those of my colleagues who were kind enough to bring in my amendments, during my absence. I thank them all the more because I could not be in the house to give the reasons and arguments I had to support those amendments. I take this opportunity to extend to them my warmest thanks.
Mr. Speaker, we have really reached the end of a lengthy debate. The members of the Progressive Conservative party took part in it in a very modest way. We agreed in a general way to leave the debate to our colleagues of the Ralliement creditiste, not that sometimes we did not have extremely important arguments to set forth, but we believed that the time to really work efficiently, as the government had promised, was in the committee of justice and legal affairs, where we could put forward our amendments and viewpoints.
The committee report has been tabled in the house. We shall be called upon this afternoon to vote on the motion for third reading. However-and I must say that, Mr. Speaker, since my remarks deal with the amendment that has been moved-we tried several times in the committee to convince the government that some of the amendments were necessary to protect both public morality and the medical profession, and especially the medical practitioners who stood against the bill before the committee because they were themselves, in conscience, against the practice of abortion.

May 14. 1969
Criminal Code
We tried to convince the minister and his colleagues, both within the committee and in the house. We tried to make them relaize that the doctors were worried about this bill.
A committee of doctors had suggested that the legislation be amended in order to enable doctors who would object as a matter of conscience or for personal reasons to procure an abortion, not to have to procure one. It would have been easy to accept a minor amendment drafted in general terms to the effect that nothing in this legislation would oblige a doctor to procure an abortion if, for personal reasons or reasons of conscience or other professional imperatives, he would feel necessary not to procure it. The government refused that amendment which in fact was sound.
The government refuses also a motion by the Creditiste member concerning a six month's hoist so that the Canadian people could really get aware of the problem now under consideration in the Canadian parliament.
This amendment is so necessary that some members of the Ralliement creditiste, myself and some others of my colleagues, have received representations from Liberal associations from all over Canada. In fact, some presidents of associations have expressed their concern and made statements contrary to the assertions of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and some other Liberal members, that during the last election, the Canadian people had been invited to vote at the same time for this government and for the omnibus bill.
This is totally incorrect since we have in hand documents and letters coming to us from all parts of Canada telling us clearly that during the last election, the Canadian people had not authorized the Trudeau government to pass this famous and infamous bill on abortion.
I have here an article from the May 5 edition of the Ottawa Journal, where it is said that Dr. Dalton McGuinty, who was president of the Ottawa-Carleton Liberal Association, dissociates himself from the Liberal party because he does not accept this legislation. That is why I am in favour of the amendment moved by the Ralliement creditiste so that those people may stand in opposition.
Another letter was sent to me which explains why the amendment was moved. I received a letter from Mrs. Claire Campbell, dated May 1, 1969, where it is said, and I quote:

[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)

The Campbell family voted for your party- [Translation]
Mrs. Campbell was writing then to the Minister of Justice.

The Campbell family voted for your party but did not vote for the liberalization of abortion. I know many families, traditionally Liberal, who voted against your party because of that very question.

Mr. Speaker, we get such evidence from all parts of the country. I have some from Vancouver, from Ottawa, in short from everywhere. Canadians oppose this erroneous, unfounded and fallacious assertion which has been made for too long by the party in office, to the effect that the people, when they voted for the present Liberal government, approved at the same time the omnibus bill. This is an inaccurate and dishonest statement and, for the Liberal members, too convenient a pretext to shrug off their obligations and their responsibilities before the house and before the Canadian electorate.
Mr. Speaker, since I do not want to delay the vote, 1 do not intend to extend my remarks. I must go fast, unfortunately, but I still feel duty bound to remind the house of this magnificent document called "the Canadian charter of human rights" which bears the signature of the right hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau when he was Minister of Justice. It is not necessary to examine this wonderful document for very long to demonstrate the present contrast between what exists in the Liberal representation and in the grey matter of the present Prime Minister. I just have to open the document at page 9, chapter 1, under the title "The rights of the individual". This chapter was written by Mr. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I will just quote the first paragraph:
Interest In human rights is as old as civilization. Once his primary requirements of security, shelter and nourishment have been satisfied, man has distinguished himself from other animals by directing his attention to those matters which affect his individual dignity.
I wonder what the Prime Minister had in mind when he referred to the dignity of the human being.
The dignity of the human being, as I understand it, is to respect oneself as such. It is to be aware, not only of one's responsibili-
May 14, 1969

ties, of one's rights but also, of one's duties and obligations. Any human being, any normal and well-balanced individual, aware of his moral, civic and political responsibilities has a duty, which is to respect that basic, natural right of the individual, that undeniable right to live of any individual.
It was proven beyond doubt before the committee, that after the implantation period, there is a foetus which is, by its characteristics and its chromosomes, a developing human being.
When considering the words of the Minister of Justice of the time, the present Prime Minister, I wonder how a human being can preserve his dignity as such and, at the same time, tolerate, allow and sanction the murder of a being called a foetus but which has its own rights as an individual, as a human being, and will be unable to defend himself if abortion is permitted or tolerated.
Mr. Speaker, I could have quoted more from this wonderful document of the former Minister of Justice. Still, I noticed, in paragraph 3, that in his foreword the Minister of Justice took his inspirations from the work of Jacques Maritain called:	Les droits de
I'homme et la loi naturelle.
In that extremely interesting book, the author delves into the source of the human being, natural law, political law, and civic law.
I note that the Minister of Justice of the day turned to it for inspiration. Just as he did, the book takes us back to the origins of natural law. I shall spare the house this, because for some government members the topic might be too deep. Still, some members might not be surprised and benefit from becoming acquainted with the philosophy of men who were determined to set up human values, criteria, standards, for the conduct of individuals, on the moral, political and civil planes.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the book entitled Les droits de I'homme et la loi naturelle by Jacques Maritain, because it ties in with the subject matter of the preamble the right hon. Prime Minister used for the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. I therefore quote from page 62 of the book:
The concept of natural law was inherited from the Christian and the classical thought. It does not date back to the philosophy of the 18th century, which deformed it more or less, hut to Grotius, and before him, to Francois Suarez, and Francois de Vitoria; and earlier to St. Thomas Aquinas; and earlier still to St. Augustin and the Fathers of the Church and St. Paul; and further back still to Cicero, the Stoics, the great moralists of
Criminal Code
antiquity, and its great poets, Sophocles in particular. Antigone is the eternal heroine of natural law, which the ancients called the unwritten law, name that suits it best.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Natural law, is meant to enlighten the conscience of men who have become able to tell good from evil, political good from political evil, personal morality from public morality.
I saw some hon. members smile when I was quoting Jacques Maritain, because his writings were the basis of what the Prime Minister was trying to impart to us in his work. In fact, on page 9, third paragraph, first chapter of the "Canadian Charter of Human Rights", the Prime Minister says this:
Cicero said of natural law-
-the Prime Minister said that when he was Minister of Justice, and it confirms Jacques Maritain's opinions:
Cicero said of natural law that it was "unchanging and everlasting", that it was "one eternal and unchangeable law ... valid for all nations and for all times".
In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas-
Government members who made fun of our quotations taken from the Thomist philosophy should realize that the Prime Minister himself made it the substance of his "Canadian Charter of Human Rights".
In the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas emphasized that natural law was a law superior to manmade laws and that as a result, all rulers were themselves subject to it.
And he continues to talk of the Reformation and finally of all the writings of Jacques Maritain which prove that there is a natural right which is indisputably unalienable. And this natural right is the right of every individual to live, the right to decide for oneself what one must and can make of one's life.
The argument is set forth by the government members who are quite embarrassed, and it is understandable, to vote in favour of such a disgraceful legislation. They seek all sorts of excuses, when we are faced with the problem as to whether we, in Canada, are meeting the wishes, the thoughts of our Canadian and Christian community, by advocating, on the pretence of a pluralistic society, that we are respecting the individual's right to self-determination; we forget, in that fallacious argument, the indefeasible right of an unborn child to life.
That is why, despite all considerations, arguments, excuses and quotations of theologians which government members used to justify

May 14. 1969
Criminal Code
their unfortunate and trying stand-I understand it-none of them asserted in his speech the right of the foetus to live. To avoid incurring the Prime Minister's disfavour, government members submitted to his dictatorship.


Mr. Mongrain:: It is not true.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, if that is not true, let just one Liberal member stand up and vote against the bill on third reading, and we will say to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that perhaps that is not true. However, we would like to know why up to now no Liberal member has had the heart and the courage to stand up and express publicly his personal views on this bill, in the light of his Christian philosophy, his aspirations and his conscience. No, Mr. Speaker, all of them-


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, because the hon. member makes inaccurate statements. Some Liberal members have voted against the proposed legislation. Some Liberal members have moved amendments, others view things differently, and it is for that reason that they vote for the bill, not because they got orders from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege. The hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, time does not allow me to answer, but I say to the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that I shall go on public platforms in due course and we shall consider together the studies made in committees. Committee members first started by abstaining and fell into step in order to block all the amendments we had moved to bring to heel a host of members-


Mr. Andre Ouellef (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Papineau on a point of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I wish to challenge the statement just made by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade). The facts are the very opposite of what he said, and, by referring to the minutes of proceed-

ings of the committees and especially that of justice and legal affairs, it will be realized to what extent members of every party represented in the house took part in the debate in a completely impartial manner-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: I think the remarks of the hon.
member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: -for Sainte-Marie are quite untrue.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think there is a point of order and I know the hon. member will admit it. However, if he wishes, he will have the opportunity to participate in the debate after the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has finished his speech.


André Ouellet: I think the remarks of the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) are the opposite of what I said myself when the bill was studied in committee. I categorically object to the assertion that we received instructions from the party. On the contrary, I did speak myself-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: -at a certain time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


André Ouellet: -against the clauses of the bill-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege and I do not think there is any point of order.
I invite the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) to continue his speech.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I thank you.
I am closing because the time is very short and we really want to make a decision with regard to this bill.
I did not intend to refer to any one member in particular. I spoke of the whole situation. On the other side of the house, a number of Liberal members do not agree with this bill and, because we have been given the assurance there would be a free vote, I invite them to show themselves as free men. I invite them to take their responsibilities and to do as we do, on this side. Some Progressive Conservative members are in favour of the bill, with some reservations, others are against it. As far as I am concerned, I object to certain parts of the bill, namely those dealing with abortion and homosexuality. I am in favour
May 14. 1969

of other proposed amendments, but since the bill has been introduced as a whole, I have to vote against it on account of some reservations I have with regard to those amendments.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, although I intended to speak on the third reading stage of the bill, I shall keep my remarks brief since there is general agreement for the vote to be taken. I deplore the introduction of the various amendments to the Code in the form of an omnibus bill. I find it difficult to see how one can relate amendments such as those to do with the liberalization of abortion with penal reform. How can one relate laws covering the use of firearms with laws to do with homosexuality? The government has seen fit to present these measures in an omnibus bill. I am in this position: Although there are many aspects of the bill I should like to support, I cannot support the bill as a whole because it has three major aspects that I cannot support. As a result, I must vote against all provisions of the bill.
Much of the time consumed during the debate could have been saved if the various issues the bill deals with had been grouped into separate measures. In this way each of the matters raised in the bill could have been voted on separately in a free vote. We have a responsibility as legislators, to uphold morality and those attributes which make our communities and our Canadian way of life strong. In this day and age this responsibility indeed is awesome. We, as legislators, have the responsibility to promote justice, liberty, good will, prosperity, and the highest standards of personal and public behaviour. In this country we send men to parliament with the hope they will produce first class legislation and not be mere followers of some questionable consensus of a vocal minority or majority.
If this is true, Mr. Speaker, and I believe it is, then the spirit of good legislation will be sensed not only in the marketplaces and production lines of Canada, but in the privacy of our families and homes as well. Any government worthy of the name will want to help to forward a national crusade for purity and integrity. In the amendments that seek to legalize homosexuality, lotteries, and liberalization of abortion, it cannot be said that this Parliament will be introducing laws that will encourage morality. Nevertheless, I believe that any government offering less than that
Criminal Code
type of legislation which strengthens the moral fibre of this nation will be weighed in the balance and found wanting. While I believe that it is impossible to legislate personal morals, yet I am convinced that the nation's bedrooms should cradle righteousness, with the backing of the state. It is, therefore, with regret that I must vote against the entire bill, while agreeing with many of its desirable aspects. Nevertheless, because I disagree overwhelmingly with those aspects of it that will work against the attainment of desirable moral standards and desirable objectives in family and human life, I am placed in the position of having to vote against it. That is the quandary in which many of us find ourselves. I will say no more, Mr. Speaker, because I believe there is general agreement for the vote to be held at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the vote by making a speech. A while ago, the member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade) challenged me, when he invited me to go and discuss the bill among the general public and I think it is my duty to accept the challenge. I accept it and I shall go and defend the bill anywhere in Canada.
I explained the bill to my constituents and they understood it, Mr. Speaker. There were no problems.
Therefore I accept the challenge of the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.

[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


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

May 14, 1969
Division


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The question is now on the main motion. Is it the wish of hon. members that we proceed with the division without the ringing of the bells?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.



PEST CONTROL


Allan Joseph MacEachen: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. C-157, to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals.
[DOT]	(4:10 p.m.)


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the amendment to Bill C-157 we find once again that the question of the right of an industry or an individual to appeal an action taken by a government department or a government official is brought to the fore. When this bill was originally introduced, we in this party made a very sincere and earnest plea against the mandatory power given to a government official in this regard. We felt then, and we feel now, that when a government official inspects or detains or takes any other action against a company or an individual in connection with the use of pesticides, there should be some recourse to an appeal in this regard.

May 14, 1969
Pest Control
Our contention was not accepted by the government, even though we pointed out that these inspectors were given greater powers than the R.C.M.P. in some respects. They could enter premises at their discretion, and demand to see papers, books, products or anything connected with the chemical involved. We maintained that when inspectors detain or cause to be withdrawn from sale certain products, there is no recourse to the courts against this action.
We were supported by the industry on this stand and they took it upon themselves to make strong representations to the Standing Committee on Agriculture in this regard. The industry felt this lack of appeal procedure was an undue hardship, and this was the reason for their plea. We in the opposition supported their plea because we felt it was justified, but at that time the government was not disposed to accept our recommendation. Subsequently, the bill, having gone through parliament, was referred to the other place. There is no doubt that the other place had the same attitude toward the rights of the companies as did the opposition at that time. So, the other place amended the bill and sent it back to the house. We had a further debate on this bill, at which time we once again attempted to convince the government that it was not the wish of Canadians to deny individuals or corporations the right to appeal.
Once again, the government was not disposed to accept the basic fact that when a government takes an action there should be some recourse or appeal from it. So, the government was not disposed to accept the amendment proposed by the other place. Now, the bill comes before us once more with an amendment which still does not provide for a direct appeal to the Courts. Instead, the amendment contains the weak proposition that appeal procedures may be set up under the regulations as prescribed by the Governor in Council.
We cannot accept this amendment, having due consideration for the rights of the industry and of the individual. Even at this late date, those hon. members who are directly concerned with this legislation appeal to the government to reconsider their whole stand on this bill. More and more of this type of legislation is being brought before the house. I think this is only one of a series of bills of this type brought before us in this session. We face the situation in which an action may be taken by a departmental representative in the course of his work and the only appeal
fMr. Danforth.]
procedure available to a company or an individual involved will be before an arbitrator appointed by the government. Although the contention of the government is perfectly correct that a judge may be appointed to consider this particular appeal, the fact is that he cannot be considered to be acting in the capacity of a judge in a court. The person whom the government appoints will be acting as an arbitrator to settle a dispute between the two parties. What we find very hard to accept is the fact that these bills, which will become the statutory law of the country, provide that once a decision is rendered by an appointee of the government there cannot be any recourse to review or appeal against the decision before a court. In our opinion this is an infringement of the basic rights of the citizens of this country.
I cannot accept the amendment to this bill proposed by the other place because I do not believe it fulfills the prime requisite of providing for a direct appeal against a government action.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a procedure whereby we can say we are having another kick at the cat, particularly those of us who as members of the committee supported the right of appeal to an impartial body from decisions taken by civil servants which affect individuals and companies. As the previous speaker said, we raised this matter in the committee in relation to a number of bills. It has always seemed to be the divine right of governments to pass legislation, both in the field of agriculture and of fisheries, allowing government officials to be judge and jury as well as policemen. This is a dangerous procedure and an unnecessary one. It seems to make a mockery of the principle underlying the Bill of Rights. Everyone should have right to redress from a civil service decision. This is particularly important in relation to acts in which the rights of individuals may be involved.
These rights are certainly considered in the review by the Hazardous Products Board, where compensation can be made in the case of a decision which affects an individual. Under the bill before us the right involved is more often the right of a company to redress from a decision that has been made by an inspector appointed under this act. While we may not be quite as sympathetic in these cases, I think the same rules should apply and the right of appeal from an individual decision should be granted. However, another problem is raised. This bill has been passed
May 14, 1969

by this house, although not by unanimous decision. We are now faced with an amendment proposed by the Senate. The house made a decision to reject that amendment.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I do not blame the minister who introduced this amendment but I do think the government should have been prepared to explain why this proposal should not have been accepted. I am sure most members will agree that the government would not have been remiss had it accepted this amendment. If that course had been taken most of us, I am sure, would have supported its decision. Regardless of the merit of the amendment proposed in the other place, however, most members would, I feel, be of the opinion that the position taken by the government with regard to the amendment should be supported. But if we say this, we should also demand that the government explain why rejection of the amendment is again being anticipated. In my view, the minister is remiss in handling amendments from the Senate if he fails to explain why he is rejecting a particular amendment and why he is asking the house to do so.
I am still of the opinion that the amendment should have been considered by the government. Most people in Canada are not interested in having an inspector from a government department, operating under the terms of some act or other, entering a private establishment and having the right to seize books, samples and so on, and send them to an agency of his choice in anticipation of a decision which may be used as evidence. Yet this is the situation we are asked to accept. Moreover, the very official who entered the premises to make the initial investigation has power to set the penalty, and the individual or company concerned do not even have the right of appeal against his decision. Anyone who believes officials should have the power to make decisions of this kind is ignoring the feelings of the average person in Canada who believes he should possess certain rights and be able to exercise them.
The decision which will no doubt be made is not a reflection on the Senate or on the amendment. It is really a reflection on the government, on the cabinet and, in particular, on the cabinet minister directly responsible, who has failed to tell the house why in this instance provision for an appeal cannot be allowed through normal channels or why the government should feel it is so important in this case to take away civil liberties which
Pest Control
should be the right of each and every Canadian person and corporation.


Mr. Florian Cole (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to recapitulate all the discussions we had in the Agricultural committee where qualified persons gave us details concerning this bill.
At that time, various amendments had been submitted. We rejected a certain number of them, but the one before us at present has not been submitted exactly as sent us by the Senate. The bill was adopted on second and third readings and later referred to the Senate.
The Senate thought it should come up with an amendment. On May 1st, this house had been informed by the Senate that it did not consider as a necessity to accept this amendment, but nevertheless made the following suggestion:
-as if the words, "Control Products Board of Review" were substituted for the words "Hazardous Products Board of Review"-
This same amendment reminds the house that paragraph (d) will read as follows:
"(d) respecting for registration of control products and of establishments in which any prescribed control products are manufactured and prescribing the fees therefor, and respecting the procedures to be followed for the review of cases involving the refusal, suspension or cancellation of the registration of any such product or establishment;"
So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), after meeting the Senate committee, decided that the amendment, as drafted by the Senate, was quite acceptable. That is why I am immediately giving these details to keep hon. members from believing that the government or the Minister of Agriculture reject this amendment. On the contrary, we recognize that it is worthwhile, and we accept it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is one of a series of bills with respect to which folly has been compounded with folly in connection with legal rights. There has been a wholesale trampling upon such rights. As the minister said, in an aside: We are trying to accomplish something but you lawyers get involved and start pointing out the holes in our procedures.
I have spoken on a number of occasions on this aspect, beginning with Bill C-154. As far as I am concerned, this bill is a complete

May 14. 1969
Pest Control
travesty of justice. It is true there is a purpose attached to the control of products used to keep down pests, and so on. I admit that. But the accomplishment of this purpose is no justification for trampling on the rights of individuals. I have pointed out that this bill goes much further than any narcotics control legislation in empowering an inspector to enter premises when he chooses, at whatever time he thinks is reasonable, without fear of obstruction by anyone. I remind hon. members that the inspector does not require a warrant. All he has, according to the minister, is means of identification. So what? Does this constitute carte blanche to enter any man's premises at any time the inspector considers proper?
Then, we come to this-talk about setting up one individual to act as judge, jury and prosecutor roled into one! The Governor in Council, in other words, the minister, is empowered by clause five of this bill to make all sorts of regulations. But the measure does not provide for the publication of these regulations. The minister said that as long as he is minister they will be published. But he doesn't know whether he will be minister a month from now. The parliamentary secretary may not know this-the minister did not know it-but there is power under the Regulations Act to suspend the publication of any regulation. This is the difficulty we are getting into following the assumption of absolute powers.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There was to be an appeal procedure. I must say that, having reread Votes and Proceedings for May 1, which contains the amendment proposed by the other place, I do not know what got into the members of the other place that they should take the so-called appeal procedures or review procedures of the Hazardous Products Act as an example to make changes, mutatis mutandis, to this bill.
I suggest this proposed board of review constitutes a complete travesty of justice. There is nothing in the Hazardous Products Act that obligates the minister in any way, with the exception of publishing the report of the board of review. Even though the minister and his officials had trampled on peoples' rights, the minister could, without accounting to anybody, simply carry on as he saw fit, ignoring the board of review. That was not acceptable to the minister, and I say thank goodness it was not. I think the review provisions in the Hazardous Products Act are an even greater travesty of the rights of 
individuals. That particular provision is completely and utterly unjust.
I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) shaking his head. If he will read this bill with the attention that a lawyer, which he is, should give it, he will see the powers that are given to the Governor in Council. Let us just observe what the bill provides. In clause 5 (d) the Governor in Council may make regulations respecting the registration of control products and of establishments in which any prescribed control products are manufactured, and may prescribe the fees therefor. There is nothing new there. I agree with that provision; I think the Governor in Council should have the power to determine such matters, and should be given the procedures to do so.
The Governor in Council is responsible for the actions of the minister and his officials. The bill provides that the minister or his officials are responsible for regulations respecting the procedures to be followed for the review of cases that involve the refusal, suspension or cancellation of the registration of any product or establishment.
There is no reference to the actions of inspectors, you will note, Mr. Speaker. An individual is put completely at their mercy. He cannot even complain about the conduct of inspectors; the bill merely refers to the refusal, suspension or cancellation of the registration of a product or establishment. There is absolutely no relief given in regard, for instance, to the destruction of any product which might subsequently be determined by the board of review not to be a product the registration of which should have been cancelled or suspended. Under this bill an inspector could simply order destruction.
Let me refer the house to clause 9 (2), which provides:
Any control product seized and detained pursuant to subsection (1) shall not be detained after
(a) in the opinion of an inspector the provisions of this act and the regulations have been complied with,-
Although an inspector may release certain products, he can order their destruction.
- (b) the owner agrees to dispose of such control product in a manner satisfactory to the minister-
In other words, he agrees to destroy them.
No guarantee is given that the minister or his officials shall be bound by any review decision. What exactly does the review entail? I suggest the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is asking this house to buy a pig in a poke, because absolutely no indication is
May 14, 1969

given of what kind of review is involved. This will appear in the regulations. After this house and the other place have passed the bill, the minister will make regulations. There is nothing in the bill to compel the publication of such regulations; it is all done on trust. For this reason, I say that the bill as drafted and presented to the house constitutes a complete travesty of justice as far as the individual is concerned.
I do not quarrel with the principle of controlling pesticides, but I certainly do quarrel with the methods that are used by the minister, who appears to me to be lacing on his jackboots and trampling on the rights of individuals. No right of society overrides justice and the right to appeal of impartial review. But there is not one iota of a provision in this bill, or any of its contemporary pieces of legislation that the minister presented, to so provide.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to this bill. I must oppose it, not because of the objective to control pesticides, but because of the methods adopted. We will never accept the principle that the end justifies the means. I am sure hon. members opposite who are fellow legal practitioners agree with me that the ends never justify the means. So far as this particular bill is concerned I should like to ask them whether, if they were sitting on any commission on civil and human rights making an impartial determination, they could accept the principles that are implicit, and not only implicit but explicit, in this bill.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On
division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

John Carr Munro: That Bill S-15, to amend the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act and to make a consequential amendment to the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, be concurred in.
Criminal Code


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, this is the report stage and no amendments have been put down. Therefore, will not my hon. friend have to wait for third reading?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is well taken. I will proceed to put the motion for third reading and at that time the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) may wish to participate. When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, should you not first put the question with respect to the motion for concurrence in the report?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion for concurrence of the report from the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


An hon. Member:: By leave, now.


John Carr Munro: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, Bill S-15 ready consolidates two bills, one dealing with contraceptive devices and the other with new drugs. As the minister said, we accept the principle that families should plan their children. The last prosecution for contraventions of the law in respect of birth control was in the late 1930's, if my memory serves me correctly.
Birth control information has not always been available to those who need it most. Now, we have formally accepted the principle that married couples have the right to space their family so that they can look after their children properly and bring them up in the best way. This legislation is all the more welcome in these times of high living costs. Our cost of living has not been higher during the last 15 years and this last month had the highest rise in 15 years. Also, since we have the highest taxes in history, a short supply of housing and galloping inflation this legislation is all the more welcome.

May 14, 1969
Criminal Code
Nothing in this legislation says that a married couple must limit their family. Those who do not practise family planning because of religious principles have nothing to fear. No one is forcing them to employ birth control methods. This bill is particularly apropos at this time, since we have disposed of the bill dealing with abortions. As I said on a previous occasion, we ought to revise our law first in the area of birth control. Fundamentally that is where family planning begins, and not after the woman has become pregnant. Those who are permitted by their consciences to use birth control methods will thus be able to plan families. I have no quarrel with that part of the bill. I have some reservations about the forms of birth control that may be used. We talk of the pill, of loop devices, diaphragms, condoms, or jellies. Loop devices particularly need to be inserted by qualified personnel, and I have some reservations about such devices. Will a doctor insert them, or will they be inserted by qualified nurses? I ask this because there have been cases where the loop has been inserted and has caused uterine infection.
I do not know whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare planned to introduce this legislation immediately after the abortion legislation was passed. His timing was fortunate because now the horse is before the cart. As I said before, this legislation will permit those who in all conscience can practise birth control to do so and thereby space their families and eliminate any excuse for abortions.
I also wanted to say something about new drugs. The present legislation attempts to take the doctor completely off the hook, so to speak, and I do not think that is right. No doctor may prescribe for any patient a barbiturate dose that is strong enough for suicide. The point of the matter is that if a patient is able to obtain only, say, 20 pills by way of doctor's prescription, trafficking would be far too expensive a matter. So, doctors' prescriptions do not enter the picture. In any event, if a doctor prescribes a suicidal dose or a dose which may be used for suicide, he gets into trouble with the college of physicians and surgeons. That, I feel, ought to be made clear. Also, since the doctor will prescribe drugs, he ought to be made to accept some responsibility for writing the prescriptions.
Lysergic acid is one of the new experimental drugs, and hardly anyone knows exactly what it does. It is well known to researchers that those who have taken the drug have had varying experiences. Some researchers think

that in some way the drug actually jumps across the insulating material between brain cells and thereby causes those wild hallucinations about which most of us have heard. We have heard of people jumping out of buildings. They actually believed they could fly. Not long ago a man jumped off a bridge in the belief he could fly. It was pointed out in committee that the drug could be manufactured from various, easily obtained substances. Yet not long ago researchers had difficulty in obtaining this drug while at the same time the drug was being peddled and manufactured on the street. This drug ought to be very rigidly controlled because it has most harmful effects.
While disagreeing with some parts of the bill, I support it in principle and therefore will vote for it. This is badly needed legislation and, since it follows almost immediately the passing of legislation dealing with abortion, it is most opportune and puts the horse before the cart. It would indeed be tragic if abortions became more frequent in family planning. As a matter of fact, they should have no place in family planning-and there should be little excuse for them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, we need not waste time by saying how very general is the acceptance for this bill. I think the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) adequately expressed the feelings of hon. members of this house and the people of this country in that regard. There is just one angle that none of us has referred to or emphasized. Having passed this legislation making birth control and family planning legal in this country, we as Canadians will now be able to go out and really do the job we ought to be doing as a member of the world community. Through the United Nations we ought to be able to reach a whole number of those countries which really need help with the controlling of their populations. Of course, prior to this time, although we were in a position to help the people of other countries in this way they could always say to us, "Aha! You want us as dark-skinned peoples to control our populations but you yourself cannot practise birth control legally." We can now help the peoples of these countries freely and openly.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
We are also now in a position where the abortion legislation comes into its proper perspective. As the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard) has stated, it is the prop-
May 14, 1969

er over-riding measure for population control. The more knowledge there is on birth control, the less need there will be for abortions.
There is one feature in this bill which I referred to in committee and to which I will refer now. I am very hopeful the minister will take this factor into account when drafting the regulations under the bill. I refer to the advertising of contraceptives. I feel sure the minister will take this factor into consideration, but I remind him once again it is very necessary.
It was the feeling of the minister and the department that the advertising of contraceptives should not be permissible in commercial journals or media, but only in medical and family planning association journals. The minister took this attitude because he was most anxious to comply with the recommendations of the committee which some months ago studied the whole question of birth control. At that time our committee did not want the countryside to be further polluted by having advertisements showing contraceptive devices in all their horror. In the fear of having screaming billboards and headlines, the committee was very cautious about making recommendations.
There has been a lot of water pass under the bridge since that time. I believe this house and the country are now ready to have the regulations governing advertising of contraceptives the same as those governing the advertising of other products. If advertising of contraceptives is put in a special little pen by itself, it simply draws attention to it and makes it quite different from anything else. The public has become accustomed to advertisements for many items which years ago would not have been considered possible. We have become accustomed to advertising for patent medicines of all kinds, beauty aids, toilet paper, deodorants, feminine douches. It is now legal to advertise all these items and I see no reason why contraceptives should not be advertised in the same way.
I went into some detail in the committee as to the difficulties that would be encountered if these two categories were divided. Some of the present legal advertising is far more embarrassing to public taste than would be advertising of contraceptives. At the present time there is an advertisement which states:
New answer for the intimate, embarrassing problems married women face.
As every married woman knows, embarrassing feminine odor that begins in the vaginal tract is a hygiene problem.
Criminal Code
If anyone were disposed to be squeamish, this advertisement would make a person that way. Yet it is a legal advertisement. On the other hand, an advertisement in a United States magazine, which is also for sale in Canada states:
Until you're ready to have your next baby-
If it's not quite time, consider-
And there follows an advertisement for a certain brand of contraceptive foam. An advertisement for the same brand of contraceptive foam shows the picture of a baby and states:
Right now, he needs his mother more than a brother.
You can give him the time and mothering he needs if you use ... contraceptive foam.
This advertising will be illegal if the minister and his department do not permit advertising of contraceptives in commercial magazines. I hope the minister now realizes that would be a mistake. It is the only fault I have to find with this half of Bill S-15.
The women of this country are used to all these contraceptive devices. They are used to the look of them and are not horrified or upset by them. The women of this country should not be forced to seek information on this matter from family planning and medical journals. They should be able to obtain this information in the ordinary way through commercial advertising.
The minister himself pointed out that family planning information is most necessary among the lower income groups. The ones with the low incomes have, proportionately, the largest number of children. It is these fathers and mothers who should know how to control the size of their families. They are not the ones who buy and read family planning medical journals. Even if they did read these journals, family planning associations do not have the necessary money to do the advertising that is necessary.
If sufficient birth control and family planning information were available, there would be fewer abortions in this country. This is a very important point and one of which we should not lose sight. The hon. member for Simcoe North states that in his opinion, having the abortion legislation passed before the birth control legislation, the government was putting the cart before the horse. I don't know whether the government had much choice, but we are having a dead heat as to which will get there first.
But in the second half of the bill, I believe the government really managed to get the cart before the horse. I share the feelings of

May 14. 1969
Criminal Code
those who felt so strongly that some items in the omnibus bill should not have been tied together. I feel very strongly about these two measures, drugs and family planning. If it were not for the fact that I want the birth control section of this bill to be passed without further delay, I and other members of my party would be very tempted to make amendments. We feel very strongly that the second half of this bill is not what is required to deal with the drug situation in this country at this time.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In particular, we feel strongly about leaving marijuana under the Narcotics Act provisions, and about the penalties applied to people found guilty of its possession. We know the government has brought in an amendment which, to a certain extent, softens the penalties, providing for summary conviction instead of proceeding by way of indictable offence. To that extent this is an improvement, but we think it is wrong to provide for long jail sentences and heavy fines for first offenders.
I have been re-reading the material prepared by the John Howard Society, and by other concerned bodies. They have grave doubts whether clamping down by fines and jail sentences is the way to handle the matter. This provision is discriminatory in that young offenders from well-to-do families will be able to pay fines, and offenders from low income families will have to take jail sentences because they will not be able to raise the money to pay fines.
However, the biggest question mark about this whole matter was provided by the announcement the minister made just prior to third reading of the bill, that he is setting up a committee to study the whole question of drugs, a committee that is to report within two years.


John Carr Munro: And a preliminary report in six months.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I am very glad to hear that. Some of the pessimists in this group said it would be two years. I hope the final report isn't two years from now.


John Carr Munro: A final report within two years; a preliminary report within six months.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Even the preliminary report will help. Again the minister has admitted that he is not sure this is the best way to

handle the matter. No blame attaches to him because of this. Nobody is certain of the best way, and consequently my colleagues and I are not one bit happy with the drug half of this bill, particularly the provisions with regard to marijuana. We want this problem handled properly, and we are not at all sure that fines and jail terms are the right way.
Although I am disposed to move an amendment to place a six months hoist on the bill, or rather on those clauses dealing with drugs, I wish to let the birth control clauses carry. If I moved such an amendment I would jeopardize the birth control half of the bill. So, Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues, although I cannot speak for all of them, will line up solidly behind Bill S-15. However, we do want a chance as soon as possible to deal with good drug legislation based on the report of the committee set up by the minister and on other up to date information.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my remarks to a narrow part of the bill dealing with the drugs L.S.D. and marijuana. It is commonly accepted that L.S.D. has proven itself to be a very dangerous drug. The medical evidence indicates that not only does it cause mental and physical damage but that it also affects the chromosomes of people, with dangerous effects on generations yet to come.
At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last week it was indicated that there has been a tremendous upswing in convictions with regard to marijuana. There were 600 convictions in 1966, 1,600 in 1967 and 2,700 in 1968. Some 1,200 of the 1,600 convictions in 1967 related to young people between the ages of 20 and 29 years. This raises the question of the distinction between soft drugs and hard drugs.
Many people accept heroin as a hard drug, and L.S.D. and marijuana as soft drugs. Much confusion and contradiction have arisen with regard to the different studies that have been made, especially on the drug marijuana. Many indicate that marijuana is not physically addictive, but medical reports have indicated that it is psychologically addictive. This is why it is so important that we have a study made by the committee set up by the minister, with a report submitted to parliament within six months.
If marijuana is psychologically addictive it may be responsible for some of the changes taking place in high school students. Here I speak of some of the students in the Toronto area, of which I have some knowledge. It has
May 14. 1969

been stated that the use of marijuana is bringing about a change in their personality and mental process. If so, it is highly important that we study it, and study it quickly, in order to bring forth some measure to correct the situation.
It has also been indicated that the incidence of the use of marijuana among students getting poor grades is much higher than among students with high grades. If that is so, it may indicate there is a symptom among young people that must be immediately corrected, an attitude towards life, an attitude towards work and school, an attitude towards parents.
The allegation has been made that the use of marijuana is a stepping stone to the use of heroin. The R.C.M.P. officials who appeared before the standing committee seemed to indicate that this was so. In this connection, when one thinks that there were 2,700 convictions with respect to marijuana last year, and that the greater number of them concerned people within the ages of 20 to 29 years, then one realizes the necessity for a study on ways and means to curb the use of marijuana because of its potentially dangerous effects. One realizes also the necessity for the government to look at the proposal regarding the expungement of criminal records.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
If the study should indicate that the drug marijuana is neither addictive nor damaging to the physical and mental well-being of a person, then unfortunately we have convicted 2,700 people in the year 1968 on a most serious charge. As we know, with a conviction against a person, especially one of tender years, there is a difficulty which arises in respect of travel, employment and bonding. So this places on us the onus not only to act but to act quickly with regard to this serious matter. I hope that once the preliminary report is made some action may be taken by the government with regard more especially to the drug marijuana. Many people feel that it should not be listed under the Narcotic Control Act but should be listed under the Food and Drugs Act. As the father of a family and with children attending school I am greatly appalled by and concerned about this problem, because the obtaining of marijuana in high schools is so easy. The encouragement by other students to try this imposes upon me the responsibility to urge upon the government quick and wise action with regard to the drug marijuana.
29180-552J
Historic Sites and Monuments Act
Without a doubt, I believe the minister and others would agree that L.S.D. has been proven to have a damaging effect on the physical and mental well-being of young people. Young people are now veering away from L.S.D. but appear to be turning to marijuana. I hope the minister will keep these thoughts in mind, especially the thought that the drug is psychologically addictive. I hope he will bear in mind the consequences in respect of the physical and mental well-being of young students, as well as the consequences of conviction with regard to present and future employment and travel. I hope that he will act wisely in this area. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-153, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on Wednesday, March 12, 1969 be concurred in.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) has asked me to represent him at this stage of the study of the bill, because he unfortunately had to be away from the capital today on official business.
However, on second reading, that is on January 20 last, he gave some explanations with regard to the bill and, at that time, members of the different parties had the opportunity to express their support. The bill was then submitted to the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development that reported the bill without amendment.
May 14, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act
This bill is of a strictly administrative nature and is not very complicated. As a matter of fact, Bill C-153 purports to provide for membership on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of an officer of the National Museum of Canada simply by increasing the number of Board members from 14 to 15 and by bringing the quorum from 7 to 8.
As I said, the Board is established according to section 4 (1) of the present act, as follows:
a)	the Dominion Archivist;
b)	an officer of the National Museum of Canadac)	one representative for each of the provinces, and an officer of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Before the adoption in 1964 of the government re-organization act, the National Museum of Canada was represented on the Board. The proposed amendment will rectify the situation and that official will be appointed by the Secretary of State.
The purpose of the second amendment is to provide that the remuneration paid to members of the Board is more appropriate to the times.
According to the existing law, those persons may be paid $20 for each day they are necessarily away from their ordinary places of residence for the purpose of attending meetings of the Board. However, considering the amount was fixed a few years ago and the depreciation of the dollar since, it is clearly insufficient and besides, less than what was paid previously to members of similar commissions.
Now, in view of the devotion and the ability of the members of that Board and the importance of the work they perform, it would be advisable and fair to grant them an increase.
The amendment provides that the remuneration will be fixed by the Governor in Council. This provision obviously allows periodic adjustments without it being necessary each time to amend the legislation.
This is the purpose of Bill C-153, which was moreover approved by the hon. members who had the opportunity to state their views on second reading. Some explanations were also given in committee which reported it without amendment. I am pleased to recommend it to the house so that it can be passed on third reading.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, members of the official opposition
fMr. Forest.]
have no quarrel with Bill C-153. We indicated this when the bill first came before the house and when it was before the committee. We repeat that stand at the third and final stage of consideration of the bill. There are some pieces of legislation which come before the house which are highly controversial. An example of this is Bill C-150, the extended discussion on which has just been concluded this afternoon. There are other items of government business which are non-controversial. The reason the present bill is non-controversial so far as we are concerned is that actually it does nothing. One cannot disagree with a bill which, as the minister stated when he introduced it last January, merely is a housekeeping measure.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Indeed, it is unfortunate, as I indicated at that time, that all the machinery of parliament was moved into action to deal with a matter which has no significance. The parliamentary secretary verified this fact in the brief statement he made this afternoon.
This measure adds a member to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. It increases the quorum and makes it possible for the Governor in Council to change the basis of compensation to members of this Board. I suppose this is necessary to keep up with the fires of inflation which have been generated by the present administration.
There are two different types of government action which might be referred to as sins of omission and sins of commission. Bill C-150 might be placed in the latter category, that is sins of commission. Bill C-153 is definitely in the area of sins of omission. It does nothing to deal with fundamental problems relating to the development of Canadian historic sites and monuments as a part of a growing demand for expanded parks and recreational facilities.
Let me use this opportunity to deal with some of the matters of omission which arise from a consideration of this bill. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board dealt with in Bill C-153 bears the great burden and responsibility for designating areas of historic interest suitable for preservation by the government of Canada. Since 1953 this Board has compiled a list of areas which should be preserved and developed as part of Canada's historic heritage.
It is entirely fitting, as the bill has suggested, that there should be some cross-fertilization of the National Museum of Canada because of recent adjustments in departmen-
May 14, 1969

tal organization. The museums branch was withdrawn from the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, so we lack co-ordination between historic sites and the museums board. There is no co-ordination in Canada in respect of the establishment of historic sites and these two groups dealing with the preservation of historic areas in Canada.
We are now going to readjust this situation by making it possible for a representative of the National Museums Board to sit in on the deliberations of the Historic Sites and Museums Board. This is necessary and was in fact the situation which existed before the government began to play musical chairs with departmental organization by reorganization, as it has been called.
I notice that in the make-up of the Board there will be representation by the new Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, with at least one representative from each of the provinces-two from the central provinces, Quebec and Ontario. In any event there will be no representation from the Yukon or Northwest Territories. This is one of the sins of omission in this bill to which I referred. No amendment was introduced to this effect because I am sure the government would not have approved.
In that area of Canada north of the 60th parallel there exists some of the most significant and important parts of Canada, particularly from a historic and heritage point of view. It was in this area, for example, that early explorations took place during the search for a Northwest Passage. Because of this aspect of historic heritage in this 3,500,000 square mile area of northern Canada, the legislation might well have allowed for representation by the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Representatives of these two areas of Canada are vociferous in their demands for independence and consideration on the part of the government of Canada. I suppose we will require another housekeeping bill to deal with this situation.
There was another important omission so far as this legislation is concerned. I refer to closer co-ordination between the National Battlefields Commission and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. The National Battlefields Commission, which has operated for most of the present century, has responsibility for the battlefield of the Plains of Abraham. This is related to an early confrontation which brought about the settlement of the final status of Canadian sovereignty. It has responsibility for other battlefields in Canada, some of which can be related to the war of
Historic Sites and Monuments Act 1812, including Queenstown Heights where Canadians turned back invading United States forces. I do not know whether we could do so now, but we did back in 1812.
These battlefields are preserved by the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It seems to me that it would be in the best interests of peace, order and good government if, in trying to bring about a rationalization or reorganization of the functions of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board, national battlefields were brought under the aegis of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the functions of the National Battlefields Commission. This would not only add to efficiency, it would be conducive to national unity and result in a saving in respect of administrative expenditures. But I think that the bringing together of the two groups will have to take place in due course and we shall again go through the motions referred to as housekeeping under the present legislation.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I do not think we have emphasized too much the increasing importance of the preservation of our historic sites and monuments as symbols of Candian progress on the road to confederation and national unity. There are many artifacts of Canadian history that are still available for preservation. Canada is fortunate in this respect because we are a comparatively young country and we still have the remains of many of these landmarks in Canada's progress toward nationhood that should be preserved. The whole movement toward the preservation of our historic sites received an impetus in the initial planning for our centennial.
It was contemplated that there would be major projects in every province that could be visited by the people of Canada and the thousands and, I suppose it is not extravagant to say, the millions who visited Canada two years ago during our centennial year and constituted the greatest boom in tourism that Canada or any other country has seen. Unfortunately, not too many of those historic sites were completed in time to be available for display purposes at that time. Just the other afternoon it was my privilege to attend a ceremony at lower Fort Garry in the province of Manitoba, celebrating the restoration to an almost perfect state of one of the old Hudson Bay forts that were identified with the early settlement of Red River which ultimately gave rise to the province of Manitoba. Then followed the opening of the west and the
May 14, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act completion of confederation in the early 1870's, by the addition of Saskatchewan and Alberta in the year 1905.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) was there and in his remarks emphasized the great importance of these historic sites as symbols of the progress of Canada toward nationhood and as examples to the young population of Canada today of some of the trials, tribulations and privations which were endured by the early settlers in this country. The restoration of the lower Fort Garry site was begun in 1960. It has taken almost nine years to complete and it is not finished as yet, but the big house which was the Hudson Bay factor's residence, the residence of Sir George Simpson back in the early part of the century, has been completely restored and furnished with period furniture. Last year, even before it was officially opened I understand, there were 137,000 tourists who visited the site. I say that it is not quite completed because in the total representation of that period of history it was felt that the Indian community which grew up around the site should be represented in historic reproduction and in animation. There is partial animation today. Troops of the period and various trades that were carried on at that time are represented, but we still have to go one step further and display the activities of our first Canadians. There should be representation of this sadly neglected group until recent times, our Canadian Indians, and the role that they played in making old lower Fort Garry a viable trading post by reason of the fact that the Indians were willing to come in with the furs. This was the first economic activity in many parts of this country.
The restoration of Louisbourg in the mari-times is well on the way. It will be a tremendous development which will not only represent an important stage of Canadian history but also will be one of the major tourist attractions.
I have already mentioned the fact that the omission of representatives from the northern territories is unfortunate, and perhaps I should end on this note because I am dealing with sins of omission rather than commission. This bill is conspicuous for what it does not do rather than for what it does do. I think the greatest historic site in Canada is the old city of Dawson in the Yukon territory which was declared a national historic site in 1961. I say it is the greatest historic site because it was the focal point of that great mass movement of men and women from all over the world
[Mr. Dinsdale.l

along the trail of 1898, the gold rush of that year. Dawson city has been put into story by Jack London. It has been dealt with by that immortal comic, Charlie Chaplin. It has been immortalized in the poems of the Sourdough written by Robert Service, and unfortunately there has been no further development in the preservation of this classic example of Canadian history since the early 1960's. I am sure that had there been a spokesman from the Yukon territory on the Historic Sites and Monuments Board he would have kept this important subject before the members of the board in season and out of season. At least we have a cross-fertilization between the museum and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I hope that now we will be able to compensate sufficiently the members of the board who are all outstanding people in their knowledge and understanding of Canadian history. Then, they will become even more diligent in carrying out their responsibilities and putting pressure on the government to act in an area that has been neglected far too long.
It is important to preserve our history and to commemorate and erect our monuments. That is the historic aspect of the problem. But it is equally important to provide facilities for our growing and booming tourist industry as well as to meet the leisure time needs of the Canadian population. I am sorry that the government did not take advantage of this bill to press on with their responsibilities in this matter. As I said, we have no criticism to make because there is nothing in the bill of importance and therefore it cannot be criticized.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really a housekeeping proposal which will make possible the addition to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada of a representative of the National Museum. However, discussion of this matter affords an opportunity to express a view of the function of the board itself and of the work it is doing. I have a few comments and three suggestions to make.
It may be of some interest to note that it was in 1919, just 50 years ago, that the first Commissioner of Dominion Parks sent a memorandum to his minister-at that time designated the minister of the interior-which led to the setting up of this particular board. The board is a small body and a hard working one; its work increases as the interest of Canadians in their past increases and as the
May 14, 1969

number of visitors to Canada grows larger. It meets three times a year and deals with a good many of the subjects one would expect to find discussed in terms of historic sites and monuments. The board carries out recommendations and policies accepted by the minister who is responsible for operating parks and sites from the Atlantic to the Pacific. These include projects such as lower Fort Garry, Dawson City, Sir John Macdonald's house in Kingston and the fortress of Louisbourg which is probably the largest example of single historical restoration in modern history.
In supporting the passage of this bill and expressing the hope that it will be speedily approved, I wish to make three suggestions. The first is that there should be an immediate review of the hundreds of historical Canadian marking placques, particularly those which have to do with Indian affairs. Many of the inscriptions on these placques were drawn up 40 years ago, since when research has done much to clarify and sharpen our knowledge of Canadian history. To put it bluntly, the information on a number of these placques is out of date. My suggestion is that the section of the board which concerns itself with Indian tribes should consult with our native Indian people, our Eskimo and our Metis, to get their views in this connection.
My second point is this. With the growth of the tourist industry, our historic sites, particularly the larger and more interesting of them, are becoming increasingly important as centres of tourist interest both to Canadians and to visitors from abroad. I should like the board to give renewed consideration to co-ordinating visits to some of our major historic sites, such as that at Louisbourg, with either a cross-country tour or a tour of the provinces in which these magnificent sites are situated. In other words, I urge a better "tie-in" between the board and the Canadian Travel Bureau. If I may put it tersely, "thar's gold in them thar hills."
My third suggestion, Mr. Speaker-and I speak as a member from British Columbia where in the Lower Mainland we have the fine historic site of Old Fort Langley around which the industry of the province, including agriculture, fur trading, fishing, lumbering and manufacturing was born-is this:	I
recommend that if the historic Sites and Monuments Board is approached by the British Columbia Centennial Committee with a request for some special activation of the fort in 1971, the year which marks the province's hundredth year in confederation, it will cooperate in doing so, thus adding to the knowl-
Historic Sites and Monuments Act edge and historical perspective of our citizens as well as to the drawing power of this particular site as a tourist attraction.
In conclusion let me say I am sure many members of this house and a great many people in the country admire the work being done by this board, and wish it well in the future.


Mr. John Roberts (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that with the implementation of the new committee system hon. members are often called upon to attend various committees at the same time. I regret that I was unable to be present when the committee considered this particular bill concerning the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board. But I do not feel I can let this occasion pass without registering my dismay and concern at the timorous approach the government is taking to the challenge which confronts us in this area.
To make haste slowly is sometimes an adequate adage in both life and politics-but to proceed tortoise-like when events are moving so quickly in this area is a recipe for losing a great part of the cultural heritage of our country. The government has brought to this question a cosmetic approach, when surgery is required. For too long we have moved too slowly. As one member of the house has just told us, the board has been in operation for 50 years-most of this century. In 50 years it has managed to support 30 buildings, almost an average of one every two years.
Does the government announce, now, an approach commensurate with the urgency of the situation, bearing in mind what the increasing urbanization of our society is doing to the physical reminders of our past? No. After long consideration the government brings down a project which, in essence, would add one more person to the board of directors. One would have thought they could come up with something a little better than that.
I recognize we are not dealing, now, with something which is fundamental to our existence. I dare say western civilization will continue if we do nothing to preserve our historic sites and monuments. I dare say Canada will continue. But it will continue with a diminished heritage.
This is not a fundamental issue, but it is an urgent one. In the past ten years we have lost a great many attractive and important buildings and we continue to lose them very quickly. In my own constituency at Aurora
May 14, 1969

Historic Sites and Monuments Act we have lost one of our historic buildings in York Township, Doane Hall. In the Town of Peterborough which is of some concern to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are in danger of losing another important historic building.
I hope you and I will be able to combine forces and do something about that one. This is urgent. Cities are expanding. People are moving into the cities. Old buildings are often expensive to maintain and are falling into neglect. A great deal has already been lost. However, there is still much to preserve if we take action-and action does not consist of appointing one more person, no matter how able, to a board.
In Ottawa, which should be important to all of us, we have lost some fine buildings, the old Supreme Court building for one. Hon. members may have seen a television program last night on this subject. The Bytown Inn is in danger of being pulled down. No one can claim this is a building of national historic importance, but it is an attractive building and one which does add some character to this city-a building which represents the spirit of the past of this city. The owners are reluctant to see it torn down but there is little they can do to preserve it, because no kind of financial assistance for this purpose is available to them. In this city, Earnsclifife, the home of Sir John A. Macdonald is the home of the British High Commissioner. Here is an historic building attached to Canada's first Prime Minister which should be supported, preserved and used by Canadians. One of the suggestions I would have for its use-and I am sure that the British would be prepared to let us have it-is as a home for the Speaker. Can the members of the house possibly imagine the citizens of the United States accepting a situation in which the British ambassador lived in Mount Vernon? Yet that is exactly the situation we are facing in this country. What kind of pride do we have in our national heritage when we are content to let plenipotentiaries of a foreign power live in the original home of Canada's first Prime Minister in Canada's capital? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that situation constitutes a disgrace.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Let us look at the old port area of Montreal. Why has the government done nothing to help preserve the buildings that are to be found there? Why is this left to the activities of private enterprise, sometimes beneficial, sometimes not?
[Mr. Eoberts.l

In Niagara-on-the-Lake we have an area of immense historical interest as well as aesthetic and cultural interest. The National Historic Sites and Monuments Board has recently announced that it is going to help support the preservation of the Apothecaries Shop, but the whole area should be designated as one that deserves government assistance and help.
There are many other places of this kind in Canada. Close to here is Williamstown, Ontario, which is full of fine buildings. Down around Cardinal and Cobourg there are marvellous buildings which may not be of unique historical interest but are splendid examples of early 19th century architecture.
Faced with the opportunities of preservation, in 50 years in this country we have managed to do something to help preserve 30 historic buildings. For members who are interested, I would suggest that during the parliamentary recess they might take a trip down to Vermont and New Hampshire to see some of the things that can be done. I ask them to go and visit Woodstock, Vermont or Deerfield, Vermont, where with government help there has been the preservation of distinct, unique communities as a whole,-not isolated buildings, but communities that bring to the present a description, a concrete depiction of how people lived in an earlier time.
When we look at what other countries are doing in this regard, the efforts of Canada seem almost laughable. I have described in this house in the past some of the activities that the French government has pursued: the enormous facilities that are directed toward the preservation of old buildings and monuments, including churches; the giving of tax benefits to various categories of owners which enable them to preserve owner occupied buildings of architectural or aesthetic merit.
In Great Britain, the National Trust was established, I believe, back in the 19th century and arranges a program of tax benefits to such an extent that the National Trust is now the second largest land owner in the country. I realize some hon. members will say that in Europe there are things that are worth preserving, that in Europe there is a greater heritage. But let us look at what the United States is doing in this regard. The United States is usually presented to us as an example of individualism rampant, where the state does not involve itself overly much in the preservation of amenities of society. The United States is spending over $10 million a year and has elaborated all sorts of programs of this sort, particularly urban renewal
May 14, 1969

schemes, for the preservation not of uniquely historical monuments but of buildings of general aesthetic and cultural interest.
The United States even has one program under which the government purchases a house, restores it and then resells it to a private owner who undertakes to keep the house in a restored and repaired order. There are many, many things in this area that we could be doing but are not doing.
What has gone wrong? I think the first thing that has gone wrong has been the orientation of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board. Its members are not so much interested in architecture or general amenities; they are almost exclusively archivists. They are historians and, I suggest, attach too much significance to the principle that the buildings with which they concern themselves should be of national and historic importance.
Another thing that I think has gone wrong has been the attachment of this board to its present minister. The logic appears to be that national historic sites are a little like parks- recreational amenities. I suggest that what we are dealing with here is not simply recreation in that sense but the preservation of a cultural heritage. That function should really come under the umbrella of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier), particularly now that the museum service is there. Because to a considerable extent the functions of the historical monuments board and the museum service are inter-related.
The basic problem of the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board is orientation- the orientation imposed by the law and that imposed by the ministry with which it happens to find itself. I suggest that the government seriously consider bringing the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board out into its proper place, the office of the Secretary of State.
The other aspect that undoubtedly hampers the Historic Sites and Monuments Board is the simple one of money. It is not simply a question of providing subsidies, but of arranging tax incentives so that the owners of buildings will themselves be encouraged to maintain them in a viable and attractive state.
I know the objections that are often presented to a tax incentive system. Yet in this particular area it is often impossible to place
Business of the House
the initial responsibility in the hands of government. When government faces a difficult fiscal situation, the first kind of program that is squeezed under a diminishing budget is one that is oriented toward cultural activities. We would have a much more satisfactory record of preservation of historical buildings in this country were we able to rely upon certain tax incentives. There are many examples of these in the United States and abroad, incentives that give to the owners themselves the primary responsibility for maintaining their buildings in an effective order.
I suggest that we should not simply abandon this type of activity to the provinces. The provinces are doing much. For example, Ontario is doing much through the Heritage Foundation to preserve buildings. It is not simply a question of preserving provincial cultures or provincial heritages; it is a question of preserving a national heritage, one that belongs to us all as Canadians, not simply as citizens of one province or another.
This is an area in which the federal government has a responsibility, but I suggest the federal government has not yet met this responsibility. Nor do I believe that the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board has faced the problem of the orientation of the board and the problem of money. I think the kind of change with which the government has presented to the house today would be a grave deception to many people across Canada. I hope the government will continue to consider this problem and that we will soon be presented with some kind of effective legislation to deal with the kind of problems I have described.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am prepared to put the question, but I had the impression that the hon. member for Vancouver East wanted to speak.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this matter so may I call it six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader whether he can say if the present bill and the other two small bills will be called on

May 14, 1969
Business of the House
Friday, knowing that Thursday is an opposition day?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my present understanding is that the official languages bill will be called on Friday. If there is any change I will advise the house tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 15, 1969


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Caccia.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]