1969-04-02

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau).
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) moved:: 
Mr. Speaker:: Is if the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the motion to adjourn today for the Easter recess is a sensible one, but I rise on behalf of my colleagues and myself to protest as vigorously as I can against the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not carried out a hope which all
of us had, namely that before the house adjourned for the recess he would inform parliament as to the decisions of the government on some aspects of the foreign policy and defence review, particularly with respect to Canada's role in NATO.
The Prime Minister has emphasized on a number of occasions that this decision of the government had to be made and had to be announced at least before if not on the day of the meeting of the Council of NATO in Washington, which I think will be on April 10. Since we have not got any statement today it obviously means that the announcement about the policy will be made during the parliamentary recess. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is another example of the cavalier way in which the Prime Minister and his colleagues are treating the House of Commons and parliament.
This is where so important a matter as an announcement of the decision on the policy of Canada's role in NATO ought to be made, so that representatives of other parties in the house may have an opportunity to express their views about the policy on which the government has decided.
1 fully appreciate, and I think every other member of the house does, that it is a matter of great importance and that the cabinet had to have time to consider it. But let me remind you, sir, and other members of the house and the people of Canada that this blessed review of foreign and defence policies has gone on for months and that there have been discussions and conferences and arguments for God knows how long.
Last December 4, as recorded at page 3485 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) asked some questions on this matter, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) replied. During one of his replies he said:
After the review is completed the intention is to publish a white paper, which would then of course be open for debate.
We have had no white paper. We have had no indication as to what the government policy is. We are all to recess for Easter without hearing that policy, and that policy will be announced outside parliament by the Prime Minister, in front of the television cameras or
April 2, 1969

Request jor Statement on NATO elsewhere. Mr. Speaker, I cannot condemn strongly enough this cavalier treatment of parliament. We might as well all be home and listen to the Prime Minister announce his policies over the television screen, if this is the way he and his government are going to act.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
We have had not only this review by the government and by agencies of the government but we have had a parliamentary committee which has met for months, which has taken evidence in Canada, which spent two weeks travelling through Europe, and which made a report. It so happens that I do not agree with the majority report, but the committee did make a report to this government. All these reviews inside and outside parliament have taken place and the Prime Minister is not yet ready to make that statement to the house. It may be that the division in the cabinet is so catastrophic that the Prime Minister, with all his intelligence and skill, is unable to solve the problem inside his cabinet. That is his blessed problem. There is no reason this parliament should be treated in this way. If the Prime Minister should make an announcement about the government's NATO policy tomorrow, as may well be the case, or on Friday or Saturday as will certainly be the case, then I say I do not believe the Prime Minister does not know the policy today. I say the only reason he is not making the statement today is that he has no respect for the House of Commons and for parliament and wishes to make the statement outside.
After all these discussions and all these meetings in and outside cabinet, no one can tell me that even this government has been unable to reach a decision on what its policy is, or that even this Prime Minister has been unable to heal the rift in his cabinet about which newspapermen have been writing. I believe that Canada's defence policy is of extreme importance to our country at the present time. Involved in it is not only the attitude of the government toward NATO, but also other areas such as NORAD, our policy in respect of foreign aid and all the other things that are involved in our foreign policy. After these months of promises and negotiations this parliament ought to hear it.
I hesitate, if I may use the expression with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to be a stinker-or let me put it more accurately, to be so much of a stinker that even I would recognize it; but if I were that way I would be very

much inclined to ask that the house defeat this motion, except that this is Wednesday and the day after tomorrow is Good Friday. Members of the house have a right to have time to get home to meet their families and the people in their constituencies. After all, I do not believe it would be sensible, fair or reasonable to oppose this motion.
However, I do rise to protest in the strongest possible language the Prime Minister's behaviour in refusing to let us have the government's policy on NATO at least after months and months of promises that this would be done prior to April 10 and if at all possible prior to the adjournment of the House for the Easter recess. There is no reason this should not have been possible, except for his cavalier attitude toward the House of Commons.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can be very brief. I wish to assure the house and the hon. member who has described himself as a stinker, that my attitude is not one of being cavalier toward the House of Commons. If we had an announcement to make today on NATO policy obviously I would be prepared and delighted to make it today. The discussions we have been having on the NATO issue have been going on in various cabinet meetings. We could not make the decision after the weekend of March 15-16, which was the first date set for the weekend meetings of cabinet to review our whole policy, because the parliamentary committee did not bring in its report until I believe a week ago today. That is the reason the latest input into our study and review had to be taken into account; that is why we could not meet the early deadline we set for ourselves, but which we had not announced publicly.
We had hoped that within a week of our meeting on the 15th and 16th we would be able to announce our policy so as to be in time for the Easter adjournment. At the legitimate demand of the house we postponed these weekend meetings to accommodate the parliamentary committee, in order that we could study its report, which we did over this past weekend. Cabinet is in discussion now and has another meeting tomorrow. I hope after that meeting to be in a position to make an announcement. If the hon. member wants to stay around I will be delighted to have him present when I make the announcement. I have no particular desire to make this announcement exclusively for my friends in the press gallery; I would prefer to make it to
April 2, 1969

the house. If hon. members of the house want to stay around tomorrow, I am sure we could accommodate them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We will not be rushed, pushed or bullied into making an announcement before we are ready for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Our commitment was to prepare a white paper and to permit the house to debate our foreign policy and defence review. This is still our commitment. The deadline to have this ready by April 10 is not of our making. We should prefer to have this matter considered by the house in a debate on the entire white paper. It is more difficult, and not easier, for us to have to make a decision on NATO before we have made a decision on other aspects of our foreign policy and defence policy. Since we are faced by a deadline, which was set by our international obligations, we have done our best to meet it. We have done so in all due haste, but without undue rush. We will continue our meetings until we are in a position to make the announcement. This may be tomorrow; it may be the day after, or it may be after Easter. We shall have to make some announcement before the 10tn and I will be perfectly happy to have the hon. stinker invited to the press conference.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask-


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?


David Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Right Hon. Stinker a question.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Lewis: May I ask him whether, if the house sat tomorrow, we could have a direct undertaking that he would make a statement on NATO policy tomorrow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would reply as I replied yesterday to a similar question, that I will do my best to make an announcement tomorrow, but I cannot guarantee it.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to lecture the Prime Minister on his use of language. I do not think the hon. member from the N.D.P. referred to him as a stinker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let him defend himself.
Request for Statement on NATO


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think it will forward our defence policy very much for the Prime Minister to refer to the hon. member in that way. It may be that if disagreements within the cabinet are as deep as they appear to be one could overlook what has been said, as the result of some exasperation which has nothing to do with the hon. member from the N.D.P.
I find it difficult to understand why the government has needed nine months to reach a decision about the appropriate role this country ought to play in NATO.


Mr. Benson:: There is also the question of the last twenty years.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not think the country can understand why it has taken so long and I do not think this government was justified in keeping our associates in the alliance in doubt for this length of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The Prime Minister, I think, has no excuse to offer the people of Canada. I am not prepared to say, however, that he is guilty of flouting parliament. I say that, not knowing what difficulties he is having with his cabinet colleagues. It may be that the difficulties-
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: What about your
difficulties?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I will deal with my own difficulties. We are now discussing the difficulties of the Prime Minister.


Edgar John Benson: What is your policy?


Mr. Baldwin:: Don't be silly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that my hon. friends are bothered somewhat by this discussion, but they might sit and listen. I will be through in just a moment.


Edgar John Benson: We are amused.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My hon. friend may be amused by me, but I can tell him that the people of Canada are not amused by the government.


An hon. Member:: Sock it to him!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We are confronted with one of two choices. We have to assume that the
April 2, 1969

Request for Statement on NATO Prime Minister is flouting parliament-and I do not assume that easily-or we have to assume that the government is such a vacillating creature that it is unable to make up its mind on this policy after such a long period of time. The government has to make a choice; we have to make a choice-and it is not a very happy choice for us to make.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the house would agree that in order that we might have some dignity and decorum in the house, those who used the word "stinker" on either side should agree to having it erased from Hansard, so it will not go out across this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the house is in a position to do what the hon. gentleman suggests might be done. My impression was that the word was used by the Prime Minister and the hon. member for York South more in jest than in seriousness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: It is in this way that I interpreted their use of the epithet, which in other circumstances would certainly be unparliamentary. This would be my ruling.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the right hon. member for Prince Albert rising on a point of order or question of privilege?


John George Diefenbaker: I was just going to make a suggestion regarding the ruling that you made, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be very helpful. In the Parliament of the United Kingdom, on one occasion the leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, referred to the government as a "lousy" government. Because there were calls for him to withdraw, he rose and said, "I do not use the word "lousy" in an opprobrious sense. It is merely an anatomical description of a fact". I assume this applies to the use of the word "stinker" which has now found its way into the records of parliament. It is however a most undignified expression for one hon. member to apply to another.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, the hon, member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said he was surprised that the right hon. Prime Minister did not make his decision known in a normal way. As far as we are concerned, we do not find it surprising at all

because this is the manner in which the right hon. Prime Minister usually conducts public affairs, and this is what happens when a government has the majority.
Mr. Speaker, we of the Ralliement Creditiste greatly deplore that Parliament is told of decisions after everybody else. We are, thus, in a position of inferiority towards the public and other countries.
The decision that will be made public regarding NATO is the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs and I think that as representatives of the people members of Parliament should be the first ones to hear about government decisions. This way, we would be in a better position to discuss government plans. In fact, if things remain as they are, we shall feel that we are useless, or rather that the government has no consideration for us.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this policy will soon be judged by the people. All those things will be made public one day and the people will then be able to decide.
I have been following personally for a few months the proceedings of the parliamentary committee on external affairs and national defence and I have been so far under the impression that the report to be tabled by the committee would not mean much, even after their European trip. It was my impression that the government had already made up its mind.
I shall close my remarks by asking the Prime Minister to assure us, even if his decision regarding NATO is not announced in the house, that it will be made known at least to Washington prior to April 10, so that we may know that the Canadian government's decisions do not come from Washington.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to take part in the discussion of this motion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -but I do not propose to vote for this motion without receiving some explanation from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) who is in charge of housing on what has happened to his urgent recommendations in regard to the problem of housing. Some time in January, I think it was January 27 or 28-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not propose to interrupt the hon. member for too long. I realize that he has a contribution to
April 2, 1969

make to the debate, but I have some doubts as to the procedural propriety of hon. members rising on a motion, which is an adjournment motion, to discuss every item of government business.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me it would make the discussion rather irrelevant so far as the motion is concerned. I think the hon. member should limit his contribution to the discussion of the motion which is before the house, in other words relate the subject on which he intends to speak to the motion of adjournment.


Gerald William Baldwin: I should like to rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to say that I agree with Your Honour, because if we were to take the time of this house to discuss all the matters with respect to which the government has done nothing, we would be here for the rest of the day.


Mr. Woolliams:: For a year.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I propose to be very brief. I want to relate what I am saying to the question of adjournment. I say that this house should not adjourn until it has heard from the Minister of Transport some account of what is to be done with the urgent problem of housing.
The minister has had plenty of warning. As I mentioned before, he has spoken on the subject as long ago as January, and the task force, of which he was chairman, presented a report. On February 4 the minister said that he was making urgent representations in writing to the cabinet. We have then had frequent questions about this matter, and at one stage I think the minister gave a clear undertaking that legislation would be available before the spring building season came about. We all know that spring is upon us at this stage, whether or not we can see it from looking outside.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I think it is perfectly obvious that the Minister of Transport has not been able to persuade his cabinet colleagues to agree to the urgent representations which he said he was making to them. What I suggest is that he should either make a statement to this house or else, because the subject is so urgent and so near to his heart, he should present his resignation to the Prime Minister. At least one of these courses should be taken. I, for
Canada Elections Act
one, do not propose to support a motion for adjournment until we have had a statement from the Minister of Transport.


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


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to, on division.



FINANCE


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and in French of the publication Private and Public Investment in Canada, Outlook for 1969, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2).



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Donald Stovel Macdonald: There have been certain discussions following the statement I made yesterday with respect to the review of the Canada Elections Act, and if the house is prepared to give consent I will be prepared to move today:
That the Report of the Representation Commissioner on methods of registration of electors and absentee voting, 1968, made pursuant to section nine of the Representation Commissioner Act be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
If the house would agree to give consent, perhaps I could put that as a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that we are prepared to consent to this motion, but in doing so, may I express the hope that during the Easter recess consideration will be given to my suggestion of yesterday that the question of election expenses be referred to some other committee, perhaps even to a special committee?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is because of the hon. member's representation yesterday that we did not put the omnibus order to which I referred.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
April 2, 1969
Business of the House
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE	Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): The pro-
[Stage Direction]
 ceedings are not out.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think it might be helpful to hon. members if I were to give some indication to the house now of the order of business we propose to call during the week commencing April 14.
The first item will be No. 64 on the order paper, Bill C-184 with respect to the Canadian telecommunication satellite. The second item will be No. 63, Bill C-183 with respect to the Export Development Corporation. The third will be the omnibus Criminal Code bill in connection with which the report was introduced today. I might indicate that it will not be our intention to call this on Monday, so that hon. members might have the opportunity to examine the proceedings and, up until six o'clock on Monday to file any amendments they might wish to put forward on the report stage. Thereafter, time permitting, we would call as the fourth item No. 65 on the order paper, Bill S-23 to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: wonder if I might say a word on this, Mr. Speaker. I am not being critical of the order of business, but I would remind the hon. gentleman with reference to the Criminal Code bill that we have not as yet received the full proceedings from the committee. Many amendments were moved by members on all sides of the house. Some were approved by the committee and others were disallowed-I presume the latter will be moved again, in the house. Monday does not give us much time in which to prepare those amendments, and I hope the leader of the house will take this into consideration in the light of the new rules under which amendments must be in your hands, Mr. Speaker, or in the hands of the Clerk, by a certain time.


Mr. Hellyer:: Prepare them in advance.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Perhaps we could have some comment from the President of the Privy Council.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that the evidence will be available in the very near future. The hon. member will have about ten days in which to get ready.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) .1


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding is that the proceedings will be out in time for preparations to be made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I say a few words, Mr. Speaker? I do not speak particularly for myself because I have already given the Table the amendments we wish to move at the report stage. However it does seem to me that the minister's assurance that the bill will not be called for the report stage on Monday should be underlined, so that members will have an opportunity on that Monday to file notices, and thus meet the 24-hour deadline so that their amendments can be considered on Tuesday. If we have this assurance it seems to me that the number of days between now and April 14 allows plenty of time in which to get amendments ready.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I think the President of the Privy Council is being unreasonable in suggesting that the amendments should be in by the evening of Monday, the day on which the house reconvenes. I do not wish to say anything offensive; we do not run a dictatorship on this side of the house, and the chairman of the committee has taken it upon himself to supply all the amendments which will be put forward on behalf of this side.
Surely, in relation to a bill of such consequence to hon. members and to so many people in the country, a day or two would be more reasonable, and anything less would not be reasonable in connection with the preparation of motions concerning this matter. I would remind the house leader that hon. members are going to be all over the country, even out of the country, some of them. Two or three days following the reconvening of the house would surely be a very reasonable minimum period to be allowed for the preparation of such amendments.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) is not giving much choice or time to the members of the committee, and particularly to those who were not members, to peruse the proceedings of the committee and prepare amendments for Monday evening at the latest. This means that we shall not be
April 2. 1969

able to meet the other members of Rallie-ment Creditiste in order to study the amendments we might want to move.
In my opinion, the President of the Privy Council, in taking such a stand, will prevent us from giving serious consideration to the report of the committee, from preparing the amendments we might have to suggest. He is not giving us enough time to discuss the amendments which could be made to such an important piece of legislation.
[English}


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: wish merely to put in a plea for some consideration for hon. members who live a long way from Ottawa. It is all very well for those who are here to say that the proceedings of the committee will be in the hands of hon. members within the next day or two. Even if they were ready, hon. members like my hon. friend from Calgary North and others who live in distant provinces must rely on the pony express service of the Postmaster General and will not have these reports until, perhaps, the middle of next week. Again I put it to the President of the Privy Council that his decision is predicated upon the periphery of Toronto and not of Vancouver or Halifax. This should have been taken into account. I venture to say that committee reports sent out by members' secretaries will take five or six days to get to Vancouver.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Thomson: 1.	Has the Canadian Pacific Railway Company witheld payment of its income tax assessment regarding two of its railroad subsidiaries in 1962, 1963, 1964 and, if so (a) what reasons were given (b) has the government initiated legal proceedings against the CPR Company?
2.	Has the Canadian Government settled out of court with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and, if so, for what amount?
3.	Was the amount lower than the original assessment and, if so, what are the government's reasons for the acceptance of the lower figure?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: Parts 1, 2 and 3. Two subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific Railway 29180-470
Questions
Company appealed to the Exchequer Court of Canada against income tax assessed for 1962,	1963 and 1964. The parties have
reached an agreement settling the matters in dispute. Apart from the foregoing, the information requested is confidential and cannot be disclosed.


SPORTS DONATIONS AS INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS
Mr. Paproski: 1.	In respect of what branches of amateur athletics are contributions by business and industry deductible for income tax purposes?
2.	For what reason or reasons has the government not seen fit to allow for income tax purposes in respect of contributions by business and industry to any or all branches of amateur athletics in Canada?
3.	Will the government not give consideration to implementing a policy of allowing the deductibility of contributions to amateur sport as a means of generally improving the level of athletic activity in Canada and internationally?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. Contributions by business and industry to any branch of amateur athletics are not deductible as charitable donations for income tax purposes. The only exceptions to this general rule are two national organizations, donations to which have been allowed for many years.
2.	Organizations formed for the purpose of furthering or promoting amateur athletics are not considered to be charitable organizations within the legal meaning of that term as used in the Income Tax Act.
3.	This is a matter of government policy. If the government proposes any amendment to the Income Tax Act to allow a deduction for contributions to amateur athletics, it will be announced at the appropriate time.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION PERSONNEL
Mr. Rynard: 1.	How many positions are being discontinued in the Unemployment Insurance Commission offices across Canada?
2.	How many employees are being transferred from their usual positions to one of lower grading?
3.	How many positions are being discontinued and how many employees are being transferred to other positions in lower grades at the Barrie Unemployment Insurance Commission office?

April 2, 1969
Questions
4.	How many employees are being offered employment at other locations in the Barrie area?
5.	What positions will he affected by (a) job evaluation (b) downgrading in spite of long service?


Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: In March, 1968, it was determined there were 697 positions that were not required because of the introduction of improved systems and procedures which would be implemented before the end of 1969. The number of employees that could have been affected has been steadily reduced and it is anticipated that by the end of March it will be less than 100.
2.	The Unemployment Insurance Commission has not transferred employees to lower grade positions but, in somes instances, employees have voluntarily requested a transfer to a lower level position in order to remain at some particular location.
3.	There is one surplus position in the Barrie office and the incumbent has indicated that he wishes to be transferred to a lower level position if one becomes available so that he can remain in Barrie.
4.	None.
5.	At the present time, none of the positions involved in the changes being made by the introduction of improved methods have been adversely affected by means of job evaluation nor have any employees in these positions been downgraded by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. Some positions and employees have been upgraded in the implementation of the changes that have been introduced.


OTTAWA, ONT.-RENTAL RATES
Mr. Schreyer: What is the lease price on a per square foot basis paid by the Government of Canada for space in the following buildings (a) City Centre Building
(b)	Sir Guy Carleton Building, 161 Laurier Ave. W.
(c)	Gillin Building, Laurier at Elgin (d) Building at Metcalfe and Slater Streets (e) Fuller Building, 75 Albert St.?
(b)
Sir Guy Carleton 161 Laurier Ave. W. Lease
(c)
Gillin Building Laurier at Elgin (141 Laurier)
Lease 1 Lease 2
(d)
Metcalfe Building Metcalfe & Slater Streets (88 Metcalfe Street) Lease 1 Lease 2 Lease 3 Lease 4 Lease 5 Lease 6 Lease 7
(e)
Lease 8
Fuller Building 75 Albert Street Lease 1 Lease 2 Lease 3 Lease 4
3.95
3.58
3.64
4.75
3.69
3.20
3.66
4.25
1.50
1.50
1.50
4.33
4.43
4.50
5.45
HOMES BUILT IN ALGOMA INDIAN RESERVES Question No. 1,636


Mr. Foster:: 1.	How many homes were built in each year for the last six years on the Indian Reserves located in the constituency of Algoma and what was the average amount of money expended by the federal government on each one of these homes?
2.	What was the amount of federal grant to each Band Council in the constituency of Algoma in the last six years?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Affairs and Northern Development):: Works):	1. 1963-64	7	units	average cost	$3,438(a)	1964-65	13	It	(( ((	$3,710Rate per	1965-66	17	it	it It	$3,565Building	Square Foot	1966-67	28	it	it tt	$4,458City Centre	$	1967-68	50	tt	it it	$5,625Lease 1	1.15	1968-69	54	it	it ti	$6,364Lease 2	3.90	Lease 3	3.96	Total	169	it	it it	$5,212

April 2, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
2.
Grants
Band	1963-64	1964-65	1965-66	1966-67	1967-68	1968-69West Bay	27,000	31,000	38,000	60,000	169,000	245,000Wikwemikong	72,000	79,000	85,000	188,600	440,390	520,000Cockburn Island	_	_	_	_	-	_Whitefish River	15,100	16,600	18,100	25,200	45,490	51,000Sucker Creek	41,000	48,000	5,300	9,000	20,210	22,600Sheguiandah	5,100	5,800	6,200	8,700	5,000	37,800Sheskegwaning	1,800	1,800	2,100	2,800	14,170	12,000Thessalon	_	_	_	_	_	_Mississagi	-	_	1,000	1,000	1,000	3,500Serpent River	-	-	-	-	_	2,375Spanish River	-	_	-	3,000	3,000	6,400Garden River	5,400	5,400	5,400	5,400	5,400	7,400Goulais Bay	-	_	_	-	_	_Rankin	-	-	-	-	-	2,750


C.M.H.C. QUEBEC REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Caoueile: 1.	How many representatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are there in the Province of Quebec?
2.	In what city in Quebec is each regional office of the Corporation located and (a) what counties are served by each regional office (b) what is the area of each of these regions?
3.	Does the Corporation Intend to open new regional offices shortly and if so (a) where will they be located (b) what counties will be served (c) what will be the area of each of the regions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1.	540 employees.
2.	The Regional Office of the Corporation for the Province of Quebec is located at Montreal. In addition, offices serving the general public are located at: Montreal, St-Lambert, Sherbrooke, Drummondville, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres, Chicoutimi, Rimouski, Baie-Comeau, Sept-Iles, Hull, Val-d'Or.
(a) and (b): The counties or areas served by each of the above offices are outlined below: Montreal: The municipal counties of Argenteuil, Deux-Montagnes, L'Assomption, Soulanges, Terrebonne, Vaudreuil, Montreal and Jesus Islands, and that part of New Quebec District lying west of the 70th meridian. St. Lambert: The municipal counties of Bagot, Beauharnois, Chambly, Chateauguay, Huntingdon, Iberville, Laprairie, Napierville, Richelieu, Rouville, St-Hyacinthe, St-Jean and Vercheres. Sherbrooke: The municipal counties of Arthabaska, Brome, Compton, Drummond, Frontenac, Megantic, Missisquoi, Richmond, Shefford, Sherbrooke, Stanstead and Wolfe. An inspection office at Drummondville provides inspection services for that part of these counties centered on Drummondville.
Quebec: The municipal counties of Beauce, Bellechasse, Charlevoix East, Charlevoix West, Dorchester, Levis, L'lslet, Lotbiniere, Montmagny, Montmorency No. 1, Montmorency No. 2, Portneuf, Quebec, Anticosti Island the Madeleine Islands. Trois-Rivieres: The municipal counties of Berthier, Champlain, Joliette, Maskinonge, Montcalm, Nicolet, St-Maurice and Yamaska. Chicoutimi: The municipal counties of Chicoutimi; Lac-St-Jean-East, Lac-St-Jean-West, the eastern part of Chibougamau and Mistassini District. Rimouski:	The municipal
counties of Bonaventure, Gaspe East, Gaspe West, Kamouraska, Matane, Matapedia, Rimouski, Riviere-du-Loup and Temiscouata. Baie Comeau: The municipal county of Saguenay, and that part of New Quebec District lying east of the 70th meridian. An inspection office at Sept-Iles provides inspection services to the eastern part of this territory. Hull: The municipal counties of Gatineau, Hull, Labelle, Papineau and Pontiac. Val-d'Or: The municipal counties of Abitibi and Temiscamingue, and the western parts of Abitibi and Mistassini Districts.
3.	The Corporation is regularly reviewing its service to the public and in such a review takes into account economic development generally, new resource development areas, population trends, distance, as well as new or changed programs which the government may be putting into effect. No new offices are planned at the present time.


FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE EMPLOYEES
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	What was the ratio of federal Civil Service employees to the total population of Canada in 1950. 1955, 1960, 1965, 1968?

April 2, 1969
Questions
2.	What were the total expenditures for Civil Service salaries during the above years?
3.	What was the average income tax paid by Canadians during the same years?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Dominion Bureau of Statistics reports that: 1, 2 and 3.
Ratio
Federal	Total
Government Expenditures Average
Employees to	for Civil	IncomeTotal	Service	Tax perYear	Population	Salaries	Canadian($ Thousand) (Dollars)	1950	1 : 106	34,123	891955	1 : 84	45,792	1501960	1 : 88	62,895	1671965	1 : 94	82,866	2141968	1 : 87	116,031	264


RAMPS FOR PARAPLEGICS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Is it general policy in federal government buildings to provide ramps or other means of access to paraplegics?
2.	If not, what buildings have been erected in 1968, which are used by the general public and do not have such facilities?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes.
2. Not applicable generally, however at the following locations, post offices, having one step or more, were built without ramps: L'Ardoise, N.S., Port Howe, N.S., St. Andrews, N.S., Blackstock, Ont., Brigden, Ont., Bruce Mines, Ont., Coldwater, Ont., Fenelon Falls, Ont., Newtonville, Ont., Pontypool, Ont., Sherkston, Ont., Uxbridge, Ont.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES IN CARIBBEAN EXERCISE
Mr. Harkness: 1.	Did members of the Canadian Armed Forces take part in an exercise in the Caribbean area during the past three to four months and, if so, how many persons made the trip to the area?
2.	Were they accommodated in a hotel or hotels and, if so, how much accommodation was provided and at what cost?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliameniary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: 1. Yes, there were two exercises conducted in the Caribbean area in the past few months. Exercise MAPLE SPRING.-69 was a Maritime

Command training exercise employing the aircraft carrier, an operational support ship, an escort maintenance ship, six helicopter destroyer escorts, three destroyer escorts, a research ship, an ocean tug, two submarines, Argus, Tracker, T-33 aircraft and Sea King Helicopters. This exercise involved 5,236 personnel.
Exercise NIMROD CAPER was a Mobile Command exercise to train soldiers and airmen in jungle operations with some 890 personnel being involved. The airlift was carried out by Yukon and Hercules aircraft from Air Transport Command.
2. 413 personnel were accommodated in commercial establishments at a cost of $41,585.24. This figure included personnel required for planning and reconnaissance parties, accident inquiry, port visit liaison, support for the Governor General's visit to the Caribbean area, aircrew overnight stopovers, Canadian Forces Headquarters and Command observers, as well as a visit by students and staff of the Canadian Land Forces Staff College, Kingston.


WINES SERVED ON AIR CANADA FLIGHTS
Mr. Osier: Has the Government of Canada directed or requested Air Canada, on behalf of regional wine interests, not to serve non-Canadian wines on domestic flights?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: no.


WYE MARSH INTERPRETIVE CENTRE
Mr. Burton: 1.	Is it planned to open a centre similar to the Wye Marsh interpretive centre in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the location of the centre?
3.	When is it planned to open the centre?
4.	What is the extent of the facilities planned for the centre?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2.	The centre will be located in the Last Mountain Lake area.
3.	It is planned to open the centre during the 1971-72 fiscal year.
4.	The centre has not yet been designed but it is expected to be similar to the Wye Marsh Centre.
April 2, 1969


INCOME TAX PAYABLE BY ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RESIDENTS
Mr. Schumacher: 1.	What is the amount of federal income tax payable by a resident of the Province of Quebec as compared to the amount of federal income tax payable by a resident of the Province of Ontario
Questions
on (a) taxable income of $2,000 (b) taxable income of $5,000 (c) taxable income of $10,000?
2. What is the reason for the different tax abatement in the Province of Quebec from that in the Province of Ontario?
3.	What is the basis on which the formula for the Province of Quebec's abatement was decided?


Edgar John Benson: (a)	(b)	(c)$2,000	$5,000	$10,000Basic Federal	Ont.	Que.	Ont.	Que.	Ont.	Que.income tax Less prov.	250	250	830	830	2170	2170abatement Less 20% (max.	-70	-125	-232.40	415	-607.60	-1085$20) deduction Plus temporary	-20	- 20	- 20	-20	- 20	- 20surtax Plus social	1.50	1.50	18.90	18.90	59.10	59.10development tax Plus old age	40	40	100	100	120	120security tax	80	80	200	200	240	240Total Federal Tax	281.50	226.50	896.50	713.90	1961.50	1484.102.	The provisions of the Established Programs (Interim Arrangements) Act, Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, chap. 54, as amended, and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Revision Act, 1964, Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, chap. 26.3.	The number of percentage points abated for each program was established at a level which would result in the value of the abatement covering the major part of the federal share of the cost of the program. Under these arrangements the federal government has made special abatements of basic individual income tax in favour of Quebec as follows:(1)	for the federal share of welfare programs, mainly Canada Assistance Plan-4 per cent;(2)	for the federal share of hospital insurance -14 per cent; (3) for Quebec's share of the federal national health grants-1 per cent; and (4) for youth allowances-3 per cent.
In each of the above cases the compensation received by the province is adjusted, either through cash payments to or recoveries from the province, so that the total value of the compensation is equal to what
the federal share of the cost of the program would have been in Quebec had all the payments been made in cash alone on the identical basis as for all other provinces.


DRAFT DODGERS ADMISSION TO CANADA
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many draft-dodgers from the United States have been refused admission to, or excluded from Canada since January 1, 1968?
2.	In how many cases since the said date, has immigrant status been granted to such draft evaders?
3.	Are American Citizens who have been prosecuted in the United States for draft evasion admissible to Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. An individual's draft status does not bear upon his ability to meet admission requirements; consequently, no data is recorded on this subject.
2.	For the same reason as above, no data is available on this question.
3.	Yes, if such persons otherwise qualify.

April 2, 1969
Questions


ILE-AUX-GRUES-MONTMAGNY FERRY
Mr. Lambert (Belle-chasse): Does the federal government pay an annual subsidy to the owner of the ferry operating between Ile-aux-Grues and Montmagny and, if so, in what amount?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: The federal government pays a subsidy of $9,000 for the navigation season and $1,700 for the operation of an ice-boat service in the winter season.


AUTOMOBILE SAFETY REINFORCEMENTS
Mr. Robinson: 1. Will the federal government consider the advisability of requiring all new automobiles to be reinforced on the sides as a safety measure?
2. Will the federal government consider the advisability of requiring ail bumpers on new automobiles to be installed with shock absorber equipment?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport:
1.	Yes. The problem is presently under review so that performance requirements can be drafted to minimize side intrusion in motor vehicle collisions.
2.	Yes. The design of bumpers as well as the energy absorbing characteristics of the entire front end structure of motor vehicles is under review to improve present performance requirements.


NEW AIRPORT FOR PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
Mr. Lalulippe: Has the government made a final decision on a new airport for the Province of Quebec and, if not, are the reasons of (a) an economic nature (b) a technical nature (c) a political nature?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, as announced by the government on Thursday, March 27th, 1969.


GREAT PLAINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What is the net acreage held by Great Plains Development Company of Canada Limited in oil and gas properties near Old Crow in the Yukon Territory?
2.	Does any portion of the acreage leased to Great Plains Development Company of Canada Limited impinge upon the traditional trapping area of the Old Crow flats?
[Mr. MacEachen.l
3.	What steps are being taken by the government to ensure the unimpaired ecology of the traditional muskrat trapping grounds of the people of Old Crow in the face of the advance of oil and gas exploration in the Yukon Territory?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Great Plains Development Company of Canada Limited holds no oil or gas rights near Old Crow in the Yukon Territory; however, Northern Oil Explorers Ltd., a company in which Great Plains Development Company of Canada Limited owns a 40 per cent interest holds 51 exploratory permits for oil and gas comprising 2,067,374 acres within a radius of 100 miles of Old Crow.
2.	Some of the permits held by Northern Oil Explorers Ltd. include areas in which trapping is carried out.
3.	All companies who hold permits in the Old Crow area together with exploration contractors and exploration consultants have been informed of the special problems in the Old Crow area and have been requested to give Departmental Officials the notice required by the Canada Oil and Gas Land Regulations at least 30 days prior to the commencement of work there in order that the local people may be informed and in order that adequate surveillance of the operations may be instituted by the Department to ensure that the interests of the residents of the Old Crow area are protected. Upon receipt of this notice, a conservation officer of the Oil and Mineral Division and an Ecologist of the Canadian Wildlife Service will arrange to inspect the operations to ensure that they are carried out with proper regard to the circumstances.


ACTIVITIES OF JAMES RICHARDSON COMPANY
Mr. Gilbert: What was the particular area and nature of the activity in which the James Richardson Company was engaged and for which the Company received a grant of $34,060.03 as listed at page 5574 of Hansard, February 17, 1969?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The James Richardson Company received this grant for an expansion to a sawmill at Cap Chat in the designated area of Matane, Quebec.


BIGGAR, SASK., HOUSING PROJECT
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by the following toward the ten public housing units
April 2, 1969

presently being constructed in Biggar, Saskatchewan (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the Town of Biggar, Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport).-
1. The estimated contributions toward the construction of ten public housing units in Biggar, Saskatchewan, are: (a) $132,085; (b) $35,223; (c) $8,806.
2. $10,240.


MACKENZIE DELTA-MACKENZIE PIPELINE
Mr. Thomson: 1. Is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources undertaking a feasibility study of a pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta to Edmonton?
2 Is the Department conducting a study with regard to extending the oil pipeline from Toronto to Montreal with a view to selling western oil in this region?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Acting Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. The Task Force on Northern Oil Development was established as a governmental task force on December 20, 1968 to bring together all information on the existing oil situation in the North, on transportation routes that might be used including a pipeline from the Mackenzie Delta, and to co-ordinate all available information from all federal agencies and departments.
2.	No.


DEPORTATION OF ROBERT P. BROOKS
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	When did the hearing take place of Robert P. Brooks of Vancouver at which an Order of Deportation was made against him?
2.	On what date were the proceedings launched?
3.	Were the proceedings of the hearing held in secret and, if so, why?
4.	Was an appeal taken by him to the Immigration Appeal Board against such as order?
5 Was the hearing of the appeal by the Immigration Appeal Board adjourned in the month of February and, if so, on what grounds?
6.	When the appeal came before the Immigration Appeal Board, were the proceedings held in secret and, if so, why?
7.	Is Mr. Brooks the associate and former partner of Harry Stonehill who was deported some years ago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 and 2. The hearing commenced on December 8, 1964, and con-
Questions
tinued intermittently over the following two and one half years, ending in August, 1967.
3.	Yes; section 27 of the Immigration Act directs that an inquiry "shall be separate and apart from the public ..."
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes. The appellant requested the adjournment.
6.	The proceedings were held in camera, on the order of the Board, at the request of the appellant.
7.	Yes; however, Mr. Stonehill left Canada voluntarily.


LONG POINT ORDNANCE DEPOT
Mr. Porlelance: 1.	(a) How many soldiers work at the ordnance depot at Long Point (b) how many civilians work at this depot?
2.	Is the closing down of this depot being considered at the present time?
3.	In the event that this depot is closed, will the employees be transferred to another depot without loss of seniority?


David Walter Groos: 1. (a) 133; (b) 406.
2.	All logistic facilities are under review to determine the most economic form of operation.
3.	It has been the practice for many years to place as many employees as possible in other positions in the Department, or other government agencies for which they are qualified, without loss of seniority.


YARMOUTH, N.S.,-DREDGING OF BASIN
Mr. Comeau: Is it the intention of the Department of Public Works to dredge the basin between the ferry terminal and the public wharf in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia?

Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): It is planned to remove three boulders in the basin between the stem of the public wharf and the ferry terminal.


LA RONGE, SASK.-AIRPORT
Mr. Diefenbaker: With a view to meeting the demands of large mineral explorations and developments in Northern

April 2. 1969
Orders for Returns
Saskatchewan, will the Department of Transport give immediate consideration to the building of a modern airport at La Ronge, Saskatchewan?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Department is currently reviewing the requirement for improvements at Lac La Ronge airport and no decision has yet been reached as to the extent or timing of the improvements which may be undertaken.


RETURN ON INCOME FOR TAXATION YEAR 1966
Mr. Salisman: 1.	For the taxation year 1966, how many tax returns with a total income between $25,000 and $50,000 were there on which no tax was payable?
2.	For the taxation year 1966, were there any tax returns filed with the dividend tax credit in excess of (a) $5,000 (b) $10,000?
3.	How many were there for each total income bracket in Parts (a) and (b) ?


Hon. Jean-Pierre  Coie@Minister of Naiional Revenue: 1. For the taxation year 1966, 31 tax returns were filed with a total income between $25,000 and $50,000 on which no tax was payable. Taxable income assessed in this group was reduced by applying business losses of other years and tax otherwise payable was offset by tax credits.
2	and 3. Information not available.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lewis: 1.	(a) Is it government policy that Canada's foreign aid shall be equivalent to 1% of gross national product by 1970 (b) if not, is it present government policy that the target of 1% of gross national product for foreign aid will not be reached until 1975 or later (c) if the latter is true, when was the decision made to change the target year and what are the reasons for such decision?
2.	(a) Among the member countries of the Development Assistance Committee of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, what is Canada's rank (i.e. first, second, etc.) in the allocation of foreign aid as a percentage of gross national product (b) what percentage of the total Canadian foreign aid expenditures is attributable to (i) government (ii) private donors?
3.	For the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968 respectively, what percentage of (a) total foreign aid expenditures (b) bilateral aid program expenditures, and (c) multilateral aid program expenditures, consisted in shipment of Canadian food and food products?
4.	(a) For the past five year period, what has been government policy with regard to the practice

of making foreign aid grants conditional upon the recipient making purchases in Canada (b) for each of the past five years, what percentage of Canada's (i) total foreign aid expenditures (ii) bilateral aid program expenditures were spent in Canada (c) is it the intention of the Canadian government to adopt as policy the concept that there should be no strings attached in the giving of foreign aid?
5.	(a) What have been the total Canadian parliamentary appropriations for foreign aid programs in each of the following fiscal years: 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68 and 1968-69 (b) for each of the same years, what was the total amount of expenditures on foreign aid programs to which the Canadian Government committed itself after consultation with recipient countries (c) for each of the same years, what have been the actual total expenditures by the Canadian Government on foreign aid programs?
6.	For the fiscal years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, what have been the Canadian Government's foreign aid (a) appropriations (b) actual expenditures to (i) Latin America (ii) Colombo Plan (iii) Commonwealth Caribbean Assistance Program (iv) Special Commonwealth Africa Assistance Plan (v) Independent French-speaking African States?
7.	(a) Has the Canadian Government implemented the "Recommendation on financial terms and conditions" adopted by DAC at its fifty-eighth session on the 22nd and 23rd of July, 1965 (b) if so, what has been the exact Canadian performance in this regard for 1966, 1967 and 1968 (c) if not, what are the reasons for the rejection of this recommendation?
Return tabled.


PARTICIPATION IN EXTERNAL AID PROGRAM
Mr. Caouette: 1.	In each of the last three years, what has been the total of Canada's financial participation in the external aid programme?
2.	Under the auspices of the external aid programme (a) how many foreign students attended educational institutions in Canada in 1966, 1967 and 1968, and what were their countries of origin (b) in what fields of study did the students specialize, and how many studied in each of these fields (c) what is the maximum amount allocated by the Canadian Government to students attending normal four-year courses at university?
3.	How many students have graduated from Canadian universities, under the auspices of the external aid programme, since 1965, and (a) how many of these have stayed in Canada (b) how many have left permanently (c) how many have requested permission to stay in Canada, or to return here, with a view to obtaining Canadian citizenship?
4.	Since this programme has been in effect, what has been the government's average expenditure per student?
Return tabled.
April 2, 1969


LABOUR RELATIONS TASK FORCE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who were the members of the Labour Relations Task Force?
2.	What are the names and qualifications of each person commissioned to do a research study by the Labour Relations Task Force?
3.	How many research studies were commissioned by the Labour Relations Task Force and what are the titles of each of the research studies?
4.	What was the total cost incurred by the Labour Relations Task Force?
5.	What amount of money was paid to each member of the Labour Relations Task Force either in salary, per diem payment, expenses, etc.?
6.	How much was paid to each of the people commissioned to prepare a research study for the Labour Relations Task Force?
Return tabled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there are still over 300 questions on the order paper that have not been answered, may I express the hope that during the Easter recess many of these might be dealt with. I should like to make a special plea for an answer to question 1,298, in the name of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and my own question 1,341, which by the time we have returned will have been on the order paper for over two months.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that question 1,298 was dealt with today by way of making it an order for return, and tabling the documents. With respect to the remaining questions we will do our best. At the present time we have responded to 83 per cent of the questions asked this session.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

David Walter Groos: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motion be allowed to stand.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. When he said yesterday that he thought it would be useful to have a meeting between officials of the federal government and the provinces to discuss the financial problems of the provinces, would he tell the house whether he was referring to a special meeting or series of meetings of officials of the two levels of government, or was he talking about the reconstitution of the tax structure committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was referring to the latter, Mr. Speaker. We feel that this would be the appropriate committee to begin exploring these problems, referring them later on perhaps to some more general federal-provincial structure.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which I direct to the Minister of Finance. In view of the obvious urgency of this matter can the Minister of Finance tell me whether the tax structure committee has been reconstituted since the conference and, if so, whether the tax structure committee has held meetings and commenced its work?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the first meeting of the officials committee supporting the tax structure committee is for April 15. At that meeting, the time of a meeting of the ministers will be decided upon and an agenda will be considered by the officials.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. In view of the fact that the first meeting of the tax structure committee will apparently take place some three months after it was agreed to reconstitute it, does the Prime Minister not now agree that it is likely to be many months, if not years, before the officials are in a position to reach some understanding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the question is argumentative.
7432

April 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



REASONS FOR DELAY IN MAKING ANNOUNCEMENT

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport concerning a subject I have already mentioned today. In view of the fact that on February 4 the minister told the house that urgent recommendations on housing would be presented by himself in a written document to cabinet, without delay, and in time for legislative action to encourage spring building activity, will the minister now tell the house the reason for the long delay in making any announcement on the subject?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The reason is really the extent and the range of the proposals being made. They are numerous, and also quite far reaching in effect. It is a package which would be quite substantial in so far as its amelioration of the housing situation in Canada is concerned. For this reason it requires not only consideration but the working out of a lot of detailed regulations to accompany the legislation. This does take a Httle time. However I hope the finishing touches will be put to all the proposed legislation, and the necessary regulations in respect thereto, so that the legislation can be introduced in the house not too long after parliament reconvenes following the Easter recess.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the cabinet of which he is a member has apparently not seen fit to pay any attention to these urgent recommendations ini connection with a subject of such importance to the Canadian people, does the minister not think it fitting to present his resignation to the Prime Minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On the contrary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: As the
Secretary of State is here today, I would like to ask him again the question I put yesterday to the Prime Minister but which is more in his field. On January 17, 1967, as is stated on page 11878 of Hansard, the right honourable Lester B. Pearson announced that a 7 per

cent bonus would be granted to bilingual officials, including those in the House of Commons, and that that rise would) be retroactive to October 1, 1966. Could the Secretary of State tell us when that 7 per cent bonus will be granted to bilingual officials in the House of Commons and whether those officials can expect a readjustment in their salary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In view of the fact that the hon. member's question is related to officials of the house, it should be put to the Speaker, according to the usual procedure, namely in writing.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, since the question I put yesterday had to do with civil servants, I wonder whether the Secretary of State could give an answer which would apply to parliamentary staff as well?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I read the hon. member's question in the official report. I then inquired of the Civil Service Commission and the Treasury Board, both of which are concerned in the answer I might give to the hon. member. I have had no answer as yet from both those sources, but as soon as I get the required particulars from them, I can pass them on to the hon. member.



AIRPORTS


Gerald William Baldwin: I have a question for the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister write to the Prime Minister of Quebec after the decision had been made in respect of the airport site near Montreal, advising Mr. Bertrand that the government had concluded that the Northwestern site best meets the objectives as stated, and asking the Prime Minister of Quebec not to indulge in any premature disclosure of the decision?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I advised Premier Bertrand, after cabinet had made its decision, of the nature of that decision. Because a matter of an hour or two lapsed between the time of cabinet decision and the time when it was announced in the house, I asked him not to make a disclosure until it was announced in the house.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister not
April 2, 1969

admit that the date of the letter to the Prime Minister of Quebec was March 26? In view of that fact, would the Prime Minister like to correct this statement he made to this house on March 28 as it appears at page 7251 of Hansard:
-as the decision was only taken yesterday after the cabinet meeting and that it was announced afterward, it would have been impossible to conclude specific agreements with the provincial authorities-
Would the Prime Minister be agreeable to having the record changed accordingly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not see what correction it is suggested I make.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will repeat it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the letter in question sent to the Prime Minister of Quebec was dated March 26, the day before the Prime Minister said he made the decision, and the Prime Minister of Quebec advised-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is no problem, Mr. Speaker. It did call for a little bit of ingenuity. I am prepared to tell the house how we met it.


An hon. Member:: You pre-recorded it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I pre-recorded it as the hon. member suggests. I had the letter typed on the 26th. I had it brought to Quebec city by one of my officials who waited in Quebec city until I notified him that it was time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Bell:: This is fantastic.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the house does not want the explanation-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think with the greatest of respect the Prime Minister has missed the point. Both his ministers said the decision was made on March 27. May I just quote-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I wonder if I could have order, or do you want to yell me down?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to quote from the letter, then I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. I quote:
The government is, therefore, prepared to construct the airport at this site and invites the cooperation and participation of the province in accordance with our respective responsibilities.
Inquiries of the Ministry
This letter is dated March 26, 1969. Was the decision made on the 26th or prior to March 26, 1969? I suggest that this letter-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the house will let me speak I will continue the answer I was giving a moment ago. On the 26th of March I wrote a letter addressed to Premier Bertrand informing him of a decision which would be announced to him the next day if cabinet reached that decision.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Are you listening, fellows?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you like to read it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the hon. member said, I pre-recorded the letter. I had it typed the day before. I gave it to one of my officials. I sent him to Quebec city so that Premier Bertrand would- be informed of the decision immediately after cabinet had reached that decision. When cabinet reached that decision on the Thursday around 12.30	p.m., I phoned
Premier Bertrand and told him he would receive this letter. The official was asked to present it to him, and he presented it to Premier Bertrand.
Premier Bertrand received the letter, I suppose, a few minutes to an hour before it was announced to the house. That is- why the final paragraph told him to keep the matter confidential until we had announced it to the house.
At the time the Minister of Transport was making this announcement to the house, I was speaking to Mr. Bertrand on the telephone in the lobby. I told him I now relieved him of the obligation in the last paragraph to keep it silent, because we were announcing it to the house and he could announce it to his house if he wished.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, as a result of that answer I now rise on a question of privilege. I want to bring to Your Honour's attention that at page 7292 of Hansard for March 31, one minister stated this:
Actually, the cabinet's decision was only taken on Thursday, March 27.
The Prime Minister wrote this letter on March 26. How could he say that was the decision- before cabinet had made the decision? How could he announce it in advance?
At page 7335 of Hansard for March 31, 1969 the minister again stated that the cabinet never made that decision until March 27. If that is not inconsistent, there has never been

April 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry an inconsistency in this house. The Prime Minister had better get together with his two ministers, and let us have the truth.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one to the Prime Minister with relation to his intriguing answer in respect of the new personalized postal service for the Prime Minister's office. Did the messenger that went to Quebec have only one letter or did he have four or five letters in respect of all the alternative sites?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He had only this letter; but there was an explosive device in it which-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is that what is known as someone going off his rocker?



MONTREAL-SUGGESTED MEETING BETWEEN QUEBEC AND FEDERAL MINISTERS TO REVIEW LOCATION DECISION

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise the house whether he or the Prime Minister received a telegram from the government of the province of Quebec suggesting tnat the Minister of Municipal Affairs of that - rovince is prepared to meet with the minis-:er tomorrow or at a convenient time to discuss and review the question of the location of the new international airport in the province of Quebec? What has been the reaction to it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, a telegram was received late last night from Dr. Lussier. I was talking to him on the telephone this morning and I told him it would be extremely inconvenient, if not impossible, for me to meet with him tomorrow because, as is well known, the cabinet will be meeting again tomorrow to discuss many important matters including, as the Prime Minister said, the review of foreign policy. So it would be very difficult for me to meet with him tomorrow.
I suggested that we might meet on April 14 immediately after the Easter recess, as I hope to be able to take a few days off before then. He indicated to me the urgency of expressing their points of view and of taking up certain questions which he would like to have further considered. I told him I would look again at the calendar and telephone him again to let

him know if it would be possible to meet his wishes or if the 14th would be the earliest possible date.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Has the
minister or the Prime Minister looked at the calendar to see if the minister could be spared from his many duties to deal with this very important and pressing problem, rather than leaving it to some time in the very indefinite future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and with the greatest respect, I think that my question was direct. Has consideration been given? Has he consulted his calendar-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that whether the minister has consulted his calendar cannot be considered a matter of great urgency.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: All right, I will leave it alone, but you know what it is all about.



AIR TRANSPORT


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is only one here today, the one from Winnipeg. Is the minister in a position today or will he be in a position when we come back on April 14 to make a statement concerning his review of relations between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines?


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there is no statement to be made at this time on this matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the government make it clear that if there is anything to be done in the way of a merger between these two airlines that the government position will be a majority one throughout?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport and others have said many times that the question of a merger is not being actively considered by the government at the
April 2, 1969

present time or by any review of air policy taking place at the present time.



WHEAT-REPRESENTATIONS FROM SASKATCHEWAN AS TO PRICING

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce may I ask whether the Prime Minister, prior to March 26, received a telegram from the Premier of Saskatchewan setting out a resolution unanimously passed by the Saskatchewan legislature in favour of a floor price of $1,954 for wheat and a two-price system, with the price at Fort William fixed at $2.12? What is the reaction of the government and the reply of the Prime Minister to that very reasonable request, having regard to the serious condition on the prairies today amongst wheat farmers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I received such a telegram I probably referred it to the Minister of Agriculture to give me advice on how to answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: In the absence of all the
absentees, Mr. Speaker, could I find out who is acting as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, or possibly the Minister of Agriculture, with his all-pervasive knowledge, could answer the question?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, such a telegram was received and it is; being considered.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister say whether there is any expectation that a decision will be made within the next couple of days, having regard to the approach of spring and the need of the farmers out west for funds, as the minister knows?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the right hon. gentleman also knows, the two proposals that were contained in the telegram are in fact major new proposals in agricultural policy, and I am sure he would not expect the government to make that decision within two days.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the government has had three weeks now. How much longer does it want to stay asleep concerning the plight of the farmers in the western provinces?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



BROADCASTING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the growing concern regarding the departure of Pat Burns, the announcer of Hot Line, from station CKGM in Montreal, and of allegations made about political intervention, has the Secretary of State made an investigation on that matter? If so, what were the results?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I had no report because I did not know that Mr. Pat Burns had left the radio station. I do not usually listen to him but I will inquire and be happy to present whatever information the C.R.T.C. may have.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Nolre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I believe that it was the "Hot Line" program that was discontinued. Would the minister check with the C.R.T.C. to see whether any instructions were issued by the commission to discontinue the "Hot Line" program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has made a representation to the minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In light of the rather startling revelation that the Minister of Transport made on Monday of a sort of occult nature, that events that have not happened yet can be discerned on videotape, and in view of the striking similarity of this to ancient knowledge known to Julius Caesar when he used to have experts examine the entrails of a chicken to determine the future in important military matters, can the minister say whether he has any expert on staff who might examine videotapes at the present time to determine what decisions the government will take in the future with regard to its review of foreign affairs and defence policies?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

April 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER



APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question, to the Minister of Justice. In his absence the other day I asked the Prime Minister whether consideration is being given to the establishment of a federal office of ombudsman and the Prime Minister undertook to check with the Minister of Justice. Can the minister say whether consideration is being given to this matter?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a direct answer, but I can tell him that the Department of Justice is undertaking a thorough review of administrative law in this country and the rights of appeal of the average citizen against government decisions, and a special committee of the house has been set up, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, to study the question of delegated legislation. The house should also know, of course, that under the new official languages bill there is provision for an official languages commissioner to act as a language ombudsman, but in general I can tell the hon. member that we are reviewing the whole matter quite thoroughly.



BROADCASTING


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Why was the order in council authorizing renewal of licences of some of the major television and radio stations in Canada delayed until the eleventh hour, creating alarm 'and uncertainty among the stations and their employees about their ability to continue broadcasting?


Gérard Pelletier: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is referring to the directive given to the C.R.T.C. regarding foreign ownership of broadcasting facilities in Canada.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: If I may repeat my question, Mr. Speaker, I inquired why the order in council authorizing the renewal of licences for major stations was delayed until the eleventh hour? Arising from that, perhaps I can address a supplementary question which will explain the urgency. Has the minister received a protest from the president of the

Canadian Association of Broadcasters that the delay amounts to intimidation and harassment by the cabinet of the Canadian broadcasting industry?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I must confess my ignorance. I have no idea of the order-in-council referred to by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris. I do not know what he means by the eleventh hour and, finally, I am not aware that a protest has been made to the Secretary of State in the form mentioned by the hon. member.



IMMIGRATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Some weeks or months ago the minister was asked questions about his or his department's policies with regard to the admission into Canada and the treatment when they are in Canada of draft dodgers and military deserters. The minister on more than one occasion said that the matter was being looked into and reviewed, and that he hoped to make a statement to the house on the results of that inquiry. Is he now prepared to make this statement? If not, how soon would he be prepared to inform the house concerning the result of that inquiry into policies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I am not in a position to make any statement today. The matter is at present before my colleagues for consideration. As soon as that consideration is complete I shall be in a position to make a statement.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: At the time the minister makes his statement will he advise whether a clear distinction will be drawn between those who are draft dodgers and those who come here to incite the people?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As has been stated so often in this house, draft dodgers are admitted to Canada if they qualify under the selection system. Their draft standing has no bearing on their acceptability. Persons who wish to come to Canada to incite violence are in a different category. If a draft dodger were a known violence inciter he would be treated in a different way.
April 2, 1969


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, might I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? In response to an earlier inquiry concerning the confusion with regard to draft dodgers and military deserters there was some question about the tabling of a document. I wonder whether the minister's colleagues have come to a decision in respect of producing this very important document.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The normal case is that these documents are privileged. They are interdepartmental and are not normally made public.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Has the minister received representations from many major bodies in this country, including churches, with regard to having this document made available for public scrutiny and information?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there may have been one or two representations on this subject.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that one Rubin was denied admission to Canada because he is a fomenter of revolution, has the minister ascertained why the C.B.C. had the effrontery to put this man on the national-


Mr. Jamieson:: Network.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, network-you are an expert in the field-and by telephone have him thereby subvert what had been determined by the department? What answer has been received from the C.B.C. and in particular I should like to know why the C.B.C. should be permitted to defy a government order and pay a wrongdoer to place his views before the Canadian people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, having respect for house rules, I will not reply to the right hon. member's arguments.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Respect for house rules! You are never here.


Gérard Pelletier: However, I will attempt to answer the question.
According to the C.B.C., the four minute interview with the individual concerned was an element of a program where other opinions balanced those which were expressed during those four minutes.


John George Diefenbaker: That is no explanation. That is just an alibi. I now ask this question. Is this kind of thing going to stop? There can be no justification for the C.B.C. breaking the law in this manner.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, not being a jurist, I cannot state as lightly as the hon. member that the C.B.C. was guilty of breaking the law.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can he tell us when he is likely to make an announcement regarding the personnel and establishment of the prices commission, which he indicated would be made during the month of March? I ask this question at this time because I would not like my hon. friend to the accused either of deliberately flaunting parliament or of inefficiency.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I hope to make the appointments very shortly, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the great interest of the Leader of the Opposition in this commission and the appointments to it since his initial reaction to it seemed to be rather cool. I am delighted to see he is warming to it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Has the minister given any consideration to the suggestion that he should take advantage of the opportunity to establish not only this commission, about which I have expressed views, but also a forecasting service of the type recommended for several years now by the Economic Council of Canada and urged upon the minister by the Private Planning Association of Canada?

April 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is my feeling that the prices and incomes commission can do much the same type of research and forecasting as the Economic Council suggested in its thrd annual report.



HOCKEY-CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN 1970 CHAMPIONSHIP CONTEST

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that the 1970 world hockey championships will be held in Canada and the further fact that only last weekend was it determined to our relief that our team would be participating in those championships rather than being relegated to the consolation round in Bucharest, Rumania, does the minister propose any action to ensure that Canada will be represented by its best hockey players?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure the question is one of immediate urgency, but since there seems to be interest in it perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker; we are taking that type of action. A Hockey Canada Corporation has been formed with all the leading participants in hockey taking part in it. We have made strong representations to the National Hockey League clubs in Canada and have been assured that they will co-operate to the fullest next year in providing our national team with very capable players. I hope this will be the case.



EDUCATION


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General what the significance is of the seizure by the R.C.M.P. of the parachuting equipment of students of Algonquin College?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much that the question can be answered at this time as a matter of national importance and urgency.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. First of all, perhaps I might be permitted the liberty of

congratulating him on having assumed this new title. In view of the fact that the comprehensive development plan for Prince Edward Island came into being yesterday, has a joint federal-provincial advisory board been established inasmuch as this will, I believe, be very important to the working of this plan?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the first things to be done and I think it will be done very shortly.



AIRPORTS


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the recent Canadian Press story that land speculation within the area allegedly expropriated for the new Montreal international airport, as well as outside it, appears to have been going on, what measures is the government now taking to stop this speculation and protect the Canadian taxpayer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, speculation will be prevented by the way the law operates. The land will be paid for at prices which tribunals judge to be fair and the land around the area expropriated by the federal government will be frozen by provincial action.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will he tell the house whether in the present instance he will follow the ancient practice of putting to dealth the bearer of evil tidings?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. Edward Broadbeni (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Was the senior official in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce reflecting government policy when he said yesterday that Canada would attempt to obtain contracts related to the development and construction of the United States A.B.M. system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; that question is not in order.
April 2, 1969



HOUSING


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport in his capacity as the minister responsible for housing. It arises from answers he gave on Monday and the possible impression he left that before he could fulfil his pledge to the municipalities of Canada to provide them with public housing guidelines he would have to visit eight or ten of the most urgent urban renewal projects. Can the minister now say whether the drafting and presentation of these guidelines are not dependent on any tour?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, if I said that I am sure I would be accused of having made up my mind before visiting the actual sites. Naturally we are giving consideration to the various alternatives open to us, to the options open to us and to the way each of them would work. But the final decision will have to wait until I have visited some of the centres I have mentioned. I hope to do that in mid-week following Easter. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement very shortly thereafter.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Minister forget that he advised the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants approximately one week ago that he would have this information within a few days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. H. W. Danforlh (Kenl-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the minister is aware that the recently imposed seasonal tariffs on cucumbers and tomatoes are not, according to the industry, providing the relief they were intended to and are lower than the industry advised they ought to be. Could the minister inform the house what emergency measures, if any, the government is implementing to stabilize the present distressed domestic market for Canadian produced cucumbers and tomatoes so that these products can be sold at prices that are at least above the basic cost of production?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):
Mr. Speaker, the so-called basic cost of production is not an exact calculation but includes a number of items which are matters of opinion. However, we are aware that there is an increased importation of tomatoes and cucumbers at somewhat lower prices than prevailed one year ago. Discussions are going on among my department, the Department of Finance and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to see what can be done to be helpful in resolving this problem.
HOGS-OBJECTIONS TO INCENTIVES PROGRAM Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville): Mr. Speaker, my question has nothing to do with tomatoes and cucumbers but has to do with pork. Would the Minister of Agriculture indicate, in view of his announcement yesterday regarding the recent amendment affecting the hog production program, whether he has received representations from producer organizations objecting to his latest move in this field?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall having received any mail, telegram or telex communication on this matter. However, representations were made to me by the leaders in the swine industry at the agricultural congress.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Some time ago the Royal Commission on Security issued a report. I understand the Prime Minister said that an effort would be made to segregate parts of the report that were not classified and to publish those parts. Is that still the intention of the government? If so, how soon may we expect to see this partial report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is still the intention. The question of the date has not yet been settled.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Before we adjourn
April 2, 1969
[Stage Direction]
Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests tor Easter, can he advise the house whether he has a recent report relating to the labour problems on the Montreal waterfront?
Hon. Bryce S. Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet received the conciliation board report. As I mentioned the other evening, the judge has been given a few days' extension by both parties since he has worked solidly for almost one week on the commission. I would say, however, that after reviewing the various proposals advanced by the judge there is hope that a collective agreement will be reached. I am optimistic that the matter will be settled amicably.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence and has to do with a question I asked him last Friday which he said he would take as notice. At that time I asked the minister if he had any reliable information as to the purposes of reportedly large Russian naval movements in the North Atlantic?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, since our forces have in the past often come under the surveillance of Russian naval and air elements we have found it courteous to reciprocate the gesture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have
reached the end of the question period. However, I believe the hon. member for Vegreville has a supplementary question concerning tomatoes and cucumbers. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask it.



TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS


Edward Richard Schreyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the government house leader would clarify a confusing situation and say whether he intends to proceed with a motion asking for a house order to refer the reports of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I had extensive consultations and it was my understanding that there was

agreement on this matter. I discovered yesterday that there was no agreement and I shall have to consult further to see if we can find some way to resolve current difficulties.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a further point of
order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. I doubt that the hon. member has a point of order. Perhaps he might discuss the matter with the minister outside the house.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: the second reading of and concurrence in the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-154, to prevent the introduction or spreading of pests injurious to plants.


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


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House disagrees with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-155, An Act to provide compensation to farmers whose agricultural products are contaminated by pesticide residue, and to provide for appeals from compensation awards, for the following reason:
The amendment changes the principle of the Bill so that compensation is payable even if the pesticide residue resulted through the fault of a pesticide manufacturer or another person. It makes it a responsibility of the Minister to pay and carry court action against a third party. It would also remove the precise requirement that the Minister may require a farmer to take action to reduce losses before paying compensation, such as washing, trimming, changes in storage etc. If this requirement is removed, it would substantially increase the costs involved in applying the provisions of the legislation. The amendment would also increase the possibility of marginal or frivolous claims.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
He said: Mr. Speaker, I shall take only a minute or two to explain this motion because
April 2, 1969

I think the reasons contained in it are selfexplanatory. We had a discussion of this matter in the Standing Committee on Agriculture of this house, and it is my opinion that we in fact decided in the committee that the requirement that a farmer take all action open to him to reduce his losses was a proper provision in this bill. Furthermore, I question whether the amount of money that would be required to administer this legislation would not be significantly changed if the Senate amendment were accepted. Therefore, on those grounds I am not prepared to accept it.
Of course, the Senate committee did go on to say-at least I am so informed-that the minister would still have the right, before payment of compensation, to require a farmer to reduce his loss, because of the permissive nature of the legislation. Quite frankly, I am not sure that if we accepted the Senate amendment the minister would not be put in the impossible position of taking arbitrary, even illegal, action in requiring or requesting a farmer to reduce his losses through many of the operations that are open to him.
There is much more I could say by way of explanation, but I think this brief explanation, together with what is contained in the motion I have just moved, acquaints hon. members with the reasons why we cannot accept the amendment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I think the Senate amendment is a vast improvement of the legislation. This point is one upon which I adumbrated at great length and ran into an almost incomprehensible stubbornness on the part of the minister to recognize the impossible burden he was imposing upon a farmer who had a claim under this legislation. Let us consider the provisions of clause 5. I shall do this in detail for the benefit of the minister. He does not seem to understand what the draftsman has provided for him; therefore I shall tell him. I submit that he is placing an impossible burden on a farmer. The minister may shake his head. Let us go through this clause word by word, and we shall see whether I am not correct. Clause 5 (1) provides:
No payment of compensation shall be made to a farmer pursuant to this act in respect of a loss occasioned to him by reason of pesticide residue in or upon an agricultural product until the farmer has taken any steps that the minister deems necessary-
In other words, the minister says: You have to climb to the moon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: But he would not.
Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker; the minister says he would not. As I told the minister before, the road to hades is paved with good intentions.


Mr. Perrault:: That is an original quotation!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Then we
find these words:
-to reduce the loss occasioned to him by reason of such pesticide residue-
The minister has said this requirement is being eliminated by the Senate amendment. He said that the principal reason would be that the farmer had not trimmed, washed or done this, that or the other. Not only does the farmer have to do this-and I think it is reasonable that he should have to do it-but it is not in the disjunctive; it is in the conjunctive because the clause goes on to say: "and to pursue any action that the farmer may have in law".
There are two conditions. They are not disjunctive; they are not alternatives; they are both absolutely binding. The farmer has to cut, wash and do whatever is necessary-I think anyone would agree that this is reasonable-and then it is mandatory that he must "pursue any action that the farmer may have in law against the manufacturer of the pesticide causing the residue in or upon the product or", and so on. This must be done even if the manufacturer is a resident of the United States. Does the minister know how difficult it is for a farmer in Canada to sue a manufacturer in the United States?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will have plenty of time to reply.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I just want to ask a question.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister appreciate the chances a farmer would have of pursuing such an action, and the cash he would have to put up as security for costs in bringing an action in a foreign jurisdiction? The clause continues:
(ii) any person whose act or omission resulted in or contributed to the presence of the pesticide residue in or upon the product.
This provision includes a former owner of the land who may be deceased and whose estate may be penniless. It includes the employee or agent of the former owner or of the farmer, who may be penniless, may have absconded or done something which means he is unable to be present.
April 2. 1969

Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is a condition absolutely precedent.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has the hon. member taken the time to read subclause 2, which provides as follows:
-as a condition for the payment of any compensation to a farmer under this act, the consent of that farmer for the minister to pursue on his behalf-
The hon. member has apparently not read that subclause.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the minister betrays his ignorance of the interpretation of a legal section. The first part of this clause provides that no payment of compensation shall be made to a farmer in respect of a loss occasioned to him unless something is done. There are no "ifs", "ands" and "buts"; there are no "mays". There is nothing permissive in clause 5(1), which is the only one the Senate eliminated.
The Senate retained subclause 2 and renumbered it 1; they moved forward subclause 3 and renumbered it 2; they have also inserted a third subclause to deal with an excess of recovery. The chances of that may be pretty slim, but they have provided for it. The minister says the Senate felt that he already has sufficient power under the act. He has. 1 will show him where he has this power. I ask the minister to look at clause 4 on page 3 of the bill. This clause provides:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a)	prescribing the procedures to be followed in claiming compensation;-
The Governor in Council is the minister. The clause continues:
(b)	prescribing the methods to be used in determining the eligibility of any farmer for compensation;-
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I wonder why the minister does not have the brains to include in those regulations the provision that a farmer cannot make a claim unless he washes off the residue or does whatever is necessary, as stated in clause 5(1) (a) which he complains is being taken out. When I use the word "brains" I mean it to apply to the minister and his officials. I wonder why they do not have the ingenuity to draft such a regulation. The power is right there in the regulations, it is even better than in the statute. But the minister must recognize that clause 5 (1) (a) allows no latitude except to

the minister. He can ask that they do anything. He is merely repeating here the powers that are already given to him under clause 4 (b), Clause 5 (1) (a) is merely a restatement of what can be done under clause 4 (b), but it is coupled with a mandatory requirement to pursue any action against another party.
The minister is wrong if he thinks that that is an easy obstacle for a farmer to surmount. I have indicated why I oppose this bill in its present form. It is because I think it is a diabolical piece of legislation in the powers that it grants. It might be hoped that one of these days the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) would have an agricultural inspector move in on his premises under this or any other act. He will then see what recourse he has. I know he has always fought for the rights of the individual, but under this bill the individual has no rights. Even the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) could not keep an agricultural inspector out of his premises.


Mr. Blair:: The public have their rights.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I heard the hon. member argue that the public have rights under the Precious Metals Marking Act, but the minister disagreed with him, and I too disagree with him although he is a friend of mine. Surely individuals have rights and should not be subject to the whim of any government inspector. The hon. member might keep all the drugs he wanted in the basement of his house and the authorities would need a search warrant to enter his house, but if he has some pesticides-


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are talking about the wrong act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not, Mr. Speaker. The same threat applies throughout Bills C-154, C-155 and C-157. I have pointed out the reasons why I disagree with the minister, and on that basis I cannot accept his persuasions with regard to this bill. He is using the wrong methods to achieve what he wants to do. There are many ways in which he could do this with a great respect for the rights of the individual. As a matter of fact I would say the minister is giving them the possibility of compensation but he is asking them to climb over mountain ranges in order to recover a nickel's worth of compensation at the other end. The minister has destroyed the principal purpose of the bill and made a hollow mockery of what he intends to do.
April 2, 1969


Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, when an opposition member has to decide between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) and the Senate he finds himself in an awkward position. In this case I find that I cannot go along with the Senate. Since this is a relatively new field we accept the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture that this point could be considered at another time if there is need for a change. I for one do not have strong feelings one way or the other, at this stage at least. In this case I go along with the suggestion made by the minister.


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.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amendment to Bill C-157 that the other place has suggested I move:
That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this house disagrees with the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-157, an act to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic functions of plants and animals, for the following reasons:
It is difficult to foresee all the ramifications of an appeal procedure provided by cross-reference to another proposed statute that was substantially amended by the house after the amendment to this bill was made by the Senate;
The amendment provides for a review procedure that was considered by the House of Commons and rejected; and
Any manufacturer, under the proposed statute without this amendment, would have not only an opportunity, but an obligation to present in detail all required technical information, and, in addition, a review procedure already is provided for all cases where goods are detained. I
I wish to be brief in giving an explanation as to why we disagree with the amendment proposed by the Senate to Bill C-157. As I said, the advice to the House from the Senate was dated March 25, and on March 28, or several days later, this house did in fact amend Bill S-26 by deleting subclauses 3, 4 and 5 of clause 8 and substituting two other subclauses. Therefore it would be difficult for us to foresee all the ramifications of this cross-reference since the other bill has not
Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests gone through all the final stages yet, if my information is correct.
However, there was a discussion on this matter in the Standing Committee on Agriculture and a recommendation was made that an appeal procedure be provided. We agreed, and in fact it was amended slightly at that stage to allow for a review in the case of a disagreement and to give manufacturers an opportunity to take their case before officials of the department if any goods are detained. That is important, of course, and in any event it is always done as a matter of courtesy and good administration, but I think they should also have the right that was put in the clause. They have not only an opportunity to do so but an obligation to provide all the technical information required respecting the product to the department in the first instance, before it is registered. The provision is perhaps redundant inasmuch as the House of Commons had a debate on it and in the wisdom of hon. members, having heard from the representatives of the Chemical Association, the amendment which was made was considered to be satisfactory.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again, Mr. Speaker, there is a difference of opinion between the minister and myself. Personally, I do not like the type of amendment put forward by the hon. Senators. It is a scissors and glue type of operation, importing into one statute provisions from another. Instead of saying precisely what is meant in the statute under consideration, reference is made to another statute. True enough, the hon. Senators were working under some difficulty in trying to fit into an existing bill something which I think was quite correct in principle.
Notwithstanding what the minister said about the manufacturers of a pesticide furnishing all the details as to chemical composition and so on, I point out that nothing in any way deters an inspector from entering. An inspector has full power to move into premises at any time he considers reasonable, to seize products and detain them. Even if there is damage to the products as a result there is no right of compensation against the government or against the actions of the inspector. It is true an action for damages might He in some other way, but under this legislation nothing of that nature is provided. The minister's officials may be as arbitrary as they like. Their actions may lack a good foundation in knowledge.

April 2, 1969

Prevention of Spread of Plant Pests


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Very unlikely.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says "very unlikely". I know the hon. gentleman draws his inspiration from above. He is divinely aspired. But the other people are mere mortals and pigheaded errors do arise. Yet there is no recourse for a manufacturer at all, no recourse for a person on whose premises products deemed at one moment to be injurious may be seized and detained.
Why object to a review? The principle of a review is granted in Bill C-154, if I recall correctly, but not under this legislation. The principle of fairness to all parties has suddenly disappeared. While I do not like the exact nature of the solution put forward by hon, members of the other place, I say that essentially they are right. There must be provision for a review.
I put this on the record: I personally do not accept the minister's motion and I am prepared to vote against it. I urge hon. members to approach this1 legislation in the same way. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) might want to take a look at this. I know some of the officials in the legislative drafting section of the Department of Justice and I am appalled at some of the work which has come out. It amounts to a denial of justice all the way through, a denial of basic, ordinary justice. Yet because this has a ministerial imprint and we are working under a sort of presidential ukase system we are supposed to accept this bill. I am amazed at the silence of some of the lawyers on the government side. If they were on this side of the house they would be talking for perhaps twice as long as I am about the rights of individuals and the way in which they are being curtailed by some of the legislation put forward at this time.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add to the words of my hon. friend concerning the minister's comments on the Senate amendment to this bill. I am of the considered opinion that although the principles contained in these three bills are good and an honest attempt has been made to help the business of agriculture, the legislation is less than satisfactory because of the fact that the interested parties in their dealings with ithe government can only act by leave of the government and its representatives. This is borne out by the fact that the hon. Senators recognized that under this bill there is a possibility of arbitrary action. They also recognized that the


industry was given no right of appeal and considered that such a right should not be denied to any segment of Canadians.
Like the hon. member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) I do not altogether approve of the manner in which the amendment has been made, seeking to implement in one bill regulations enacted under another. But in the main I think it was an honest attempt to rectify a major weakness in the legislation.
In my opinion the minister failed to indicate the real feelings of the chemical industry when discussing the proceedings in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. The industry in its representations did not agree with the principle set out in the bill regarding an appeal. This was one of the contentious issues. Industry representatives felt they had no method of appeal against actions which could be arbitrarily taken as a result of the powers granted to the Department of Agriculture. They were fearful of the kind of action which might be taken under this legislation.
We would be derelict in our duty if we were to grant power of this kind to a department in circumstances where it might be used in a manner harmful to the welfare of those whom the legislation was designed to help. It may be unfortunate that the amendment has been drafted in its present form, but we on this side cannot accept these bills. They are bad bills, not because of the principles involved but because of the way in which they are drafted and the arbitrary power placed in the hands of a few who, not subject to appeal, could almost cripple the day to day activities of the industry involved.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
I should like to take this opportunity of registering my opposition to the fact that the minister will not accept this avenue of appeal, though in my opinion I agree with my colleague that the avenue of appeal proposed by the Senators is not perhaps the best that could have been advocated. When this bill was before us in its original form many members on this side of the house tried earnestly and sincerely to influence the minister to incorporate in the bill a direct appeal which in my humble opinion would go farther than the amendment presented by the Senate.


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


Harold Warren Danforth: On division


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
April 2. 1969	COMMONS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to move the adjournment of this session-


Stanley Howard Knowles: this house. You are not Governor General yet!


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, of this house. However, before I do so may I be permitted to express to Your Honour and to members on both sides of the house my wish that they will have a very restful, enjoyable and well deserved recess.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members of this party we wish to thank the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Olson) for the very kind words he has just spoken. We join in the greetings he has expressed and in particular we would like to wish Your Honour a restful and enjoyable Easter break.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, we will say it with flowers.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for their kind wishes. Before putting the motion of the minister to the house, may I take advantage of this opportunity to extend my
DEBATES	7445
Adjournment for Easter warmest greetings and good wishes to hon. members for a well and richly deserved holiday.

I wish my colleagues of the House of Commons a restful and well-deserved vacation. I sincerely wish them all a happy Easter.

According to tradition I am pleased to invite hon. members to join me in room 16 at the time of adjournment.

I have the pleasure to invite the hon. members their friends, the officials of the house and their colleagues, as well as the members of the press gallery, to gather in room 16 for a few moments.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I move, seconded by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cote):
That this house do now adjourn.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the order made this day this house stands adjourned until Monday, April 14, 1969, at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At seven minutes past four the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Monday, April 14, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on justice and legal affairs-Mr. Andre Ouellet (Papineau).
Fifteenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in French and in English-Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau).
[Editor's Note: The text of the foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]