1969-11-19

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I put some questions to the Prime Minister, and one word that makes all the difference in the world to the statement I made has been omitted on page 931 of Hansard. In the U.S.S.R. Mao is known as "the great tiger". Yesterday I said, referring to Professor Lin, that the last time he visited Communist China "he reported on the great tiger to the Prime Minister." The words in Hansard carry a meaning that was never intended. I was referring to the last time he went there to visit the great tiger. I want to make that clear.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to point out that in asking the question yesterday the right hon. member conveyed to the House false information. Because Your Honour ruled the question out of order I was not able to correct this information. This sort of thing happens all the time, of course.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: We get it from the Prime Minister every day.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When members of the opposition ask loaded questions and convey false information, Your Honour rules them out of order. Again, this is a perfect example of the right hon. member having stated a falsehood in his question and I was not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I now rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right hon. gentleman had risen on a question of privilege and the Prime Minister rose on a point of order. I hope we are not going to get involved too
much in this sort of thing, but the right hon. gentleman is now seeking the floor on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to enter into an argument with the Prime Minister as to the making of false statements. We have had that experience with him, and regularly. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Lin was a close friend of the Prime Minister and had reported to him the last time on his visit to Communist China.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At some point I must intervene to suggest to hon. members that I do not believe there is a question of privilege or a point of order here. We are having a discussion regarding an interpretation of what was and what was not said. This type of discussion should really not give rise to questions of privilege. I suggest to hon. members that perhaps not much will be gained by pursuing the matter further.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a question of privilege. The right hon. member has just stated two new falsehoods. First of all, he said that I was a friend of Professor Lin.


An hon. Member:: We don't want excuses.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are not interested in the truth? Then I will tell it to somebody else. The right hon. member said that I was a friend of Professor Lin, a person I have never met and whom I do not know. Second, the right hon. member stated that he had reported to me. That is another falsehood. I have never met him nor read any of his papers. Therefore this is falsehood compounded on the part of the right hon. member.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that
statement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman to my left in a moment; he is rising on another question of privilege. I certainly do not think we are going to achieve very much by a succession of alleged questions of privilege. In my view they are not questions of privilege at all. The right hon. gentleman is seeking to rise on

November 19, 1969
Privilege
another question of privilege. I will hear him and determine whether he does have a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the statement that a report was made by Mr. Lin to the government appeared in the press months ago.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the press! So what's new?


John George Diefenbaker: And the Prime Minister never denied it. Now he does deny it because he knows the implication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I were to spend my time denying statements that appear in the press, or saying whether what is said in the press is false or not, I would have time for nothing else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to maintain my suggestion that there was no question of privilege. Once again this is a dispute between the two right hon. members as to alleged facts. There is therefore no privilege and I have to so rule. I hope no member will want to raise a question of privilege on behalf of the Press Gallery.


Hon. Roberi L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you I do not rise to attack the press or anybody else.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That's nice.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: There is an inaccuracy in Hansard. Unfortunately I do not have a copy in front of me and cannot refer to the page number. In a question addressed to the Prime Minister I referred to a statement made by Dr. Young, the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, with regard to an unacceptable rate of employment. I now have a copy of Hansard, and at page 935 I am reported as follows:
-in view of the statement by Mr. Young that in the event of the failure of a policy of restraint the authorities may have to resort to a degree of unemployment which will be acceptable to all concerned.
I believe I said "unacceptable". This is clear from the question. It only makes sense that way; otherwise it does not make sense.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They don't always, though.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if I am offending the Prime Minister. I request

that Hansard be changed to read "a degree of unemployment which will be unacceptable", rather than "acceptable."



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, in English and in French-Mr. H.-Pit Lessard.
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Paul-M. Gervais.
[Editor's Note: Tdxt of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the House will recall an announcement by the Minister of Transport some days ago proposing that ihe question of ground transportation at airports in Canada should be the subject matter of a committee study. There has now been consultation with the representatives of the various parties and I believe there might be unanimous consent to an order in the following terms:
That the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be directed to examine the subject matter of ground transportation at airports in Canada;
And that during its consideration of the aforementioned matter the committee be empowered to adjourn from place to place within Canada.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I have to apologize to the minister in this regard. I was not present at the House leaders' meeting that took place yesterday. The order is in fact acceptable except for the clause with regard to adjourning from place to place. I regret having to tell the minister this because he did consult with me immediately before the House sat.
I must say that the latter part of the order which provides for adjourning from place to place in Canada is not acceptable. I do not
November 19, 1969

need to say why. If an application is made by the chairman to concur in a report of the committee which so suggests, we will deal with it at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: I appreciate the point being made by the hon. member for Peace River. The motion is not before the House. The President of the Privy Council sought unanimous consent of the House to put the motion. There does not appear to be unanimity on the motion. I assume it is not being put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief report upon my visit to the Middle East which took place last week.
Canada has been closely concerned in Middle Eastern affairs since we participated in the activities of the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine, which drew up the Palestine partition plan of 1947. We voted for the United Nations resolution setting up the State of Israel in 1948. Recognition of the right of the State of Israel to exist remains an essential feature of our Middle Eastern policy. At the same time, we try to maintain an objective approach to the current problems of the area. Our essential objective is that all states there should be enabled to live in peace and security, free from threats of war or territorial encroachment.
For two decades, Canada has had military personnel in United Nations peacekeeping operations in the area. Canada is also the third largest contributor to the United Nations agency working for the relief of the Arab refugees.
Our Middle Eastern policy has largely found expression through the United Nations in New York. It was there that we took part in the steps which led to the birth of the State of Israel; it was there that the United Nations Emergency Force was established. More recently, as a member of the Security Council, it was there that we took part in drafting Resolution 242 of November 1967, the resolution that we feel offers the best available framework for progress toward peace in the area.
My visits were a reflection of our long involvement in the affairs of the Middle East, in response to invitations from the foreign ministers of Iran, Israel and the United Arab Republic, and in return for visits paid to
Statement by Minister on Middle East Canada by the Shah of Iran, the President, the late Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Israel, and the Foreign Minister of the United Arab Republic. More particularly, I wished to learn at first hand the attitudes and policies of the governments concerned with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
I return from my visit both saddened and discouraged. Prime Minister Meir and President Nasser both told me that they seek a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is very hard to see how useful negotiations can begin when the preoccupations of the parties are in direct confrontation. Israel is preoccupied with the security of her boundaries and her insistence upon direct negotiations with her neighbours. The United Arab Republic is preoccupied with the withdrawal of Israel to its pre-1967 boundaries and the fate of the Arab refugees. I can see no immediate resolution of this confrontation.
When I went to the Middle East I had no solution to offer and no proposals to make; I went to inform myself on the situation as seen, first, by Iran, a nation which does not take sides, and by the two main protagonists. In every country visited we were received with great courtesy by the head of state, the principal minister and the foreign minister. In each country the heads of state and their ministers devoted many hours to concentrated conversations. The views I expressed in outlining Canadian policy were given thoughtful consideration and the questions I asked answered fully and forthrightly. Wherever I went I found a manifest wish to have Canada understand the positions taken. This reminds us of Canada's special standing as a peaceseeking and peacemaking nation and is evidence, perhaps, of the need for understanding on the part of the nations in conflict.
My first visit was to Iran, where I saw a nation preoccupied with the advancement of its economy and the improvement of the conditions of life of its people. Its geographical location requires Iran to be intimately involved in the problems of the Middle East. I found a nation some 6,000 miles from Canada, in the heart of the Middle East, pursuing a Middle Eastern policy closely parallel to our own. In my subsequent visits I found my discussions in Tehran most useful both for the information I drew from them and for the political attitudes expressed.
In Israel I was moved, as anyone must be, by the sense of pride in nationhood that characterizes that country, and deeply impressed by what has been achieved in
November 19, 1969

Statement by Minister on Middle East nationbuilding in 20 years. In Egypt I saw a nation where the evidences of ancient glory are very much present, contrasting cruelly with the present-day struggle to evolve a better standard of living for its people.
The situation in the Middle East today is tragic. There is so much to be done in that part of the world and the will and technology are there. The tragedy is that in so many of the countries the resources needed for development are tied up in an arid confrontation which threatens to burst into violent conflict.
I left the Middle East with a profound sense of disquiet. Effective negotiation is not an immediate prospect. Escalation of the conflict is an immediate danger. In these circumstances, perhaps the best role for Canada to play in the foreseeable future is that of an understanding, compassionate, and objective observer, ready to assist if and when there is a specific task for us to undertake at the instance of both sides.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Let us hope that notwithstanding the present difficulties, counsels of moderation will prevail, and that some day, somehow, peace will come to the Middle East.
It would not be appropriate in a statement on motions to review in detail the bilateral discussions we had in each capital. There are great trading opportunities, particularly with Iran and Israel, and some important possibilities with the United Arab Republic. All three countries are eager for increasing contact with us. Perhaps one of the ways in which we can help is to be more of a presence in the Middle East, a part of the world that needs friends and cherishes friendship.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Fairweather:: There is no need for applause; I have not been away anywhere.
We welcome the minister back to Canada and to Parliament. I am sure he would agree that most Canadians expect two things in the pursuit of our policy toward the Middle East. The first is the right of the state of Israel to exist in the community of the world. The second is the solution of the refugee problem which has plagued the ingenuity of statesmen but, more important, has caused severe hardship and privation to the people concerned. One author stated that the symbol of the twentieth century, he suspects, will prove to

be the refugee. The people of Israel have more reason than most to know that this is true.
The minister speaks of his profound sense of pessimism. We can only hope that this will prove not to be justified because we recognize that war is no longer an acceptable way to solve conflicts between men.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we also would like to welcome the minister back to the House. We are pleased that he was able to visit that part of the world which, as he said and as we all know, is of vital concern to world peace. The situation in the Middle East at present constitutes the greatest threat to world peace. I think the minister must feel sometimes that their internal problems seem almost insoluble, but because the peace of the world depends on it they must be solved.
I am glad to note that the minister concentrated in his statement upon the United Nations. It may well be that the agreement of the two super-powers, the United States of America and the U.S.S.R., is necessary to a solution of this problem, but the solution must be within the framework of international order.
One of the things that some members of the House, including myself, who were in New York recently at the United Nations were told when we were discussing peacekeeping was that the eventual solution of this problem would require an enlarged and enhanced peacekeeping force. We think that perhaps the greatest contribution Canada could make, as the minister's statement seems to indicate, would be to assist in the provision of such a force when and if it can be used in these countries.
I join the hon. member for Fundy-Royal in urging once again an increased effort to deal with the festering sore of the refugees, which is essential to the solution of this problem.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, like the two members who spoke previously, I shall say that we are also pleased by the return to Canada of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). However, as he confessed that during his trip to the Middle East, he had no solution to offer nor any proposal to make, I wonder what business he had going to that part of the world. In my opinion, it would have been rather difficult, for a country that contributed to
November 19, 1969

Questions
the partition of Palestine in 1947, to go and offer reparation for what was destroyed at that time.
The spark which threatens to ignite the Middle East at any moment is a great concern to us, but if the minister made the trip to study the situation instead of finding a solution, I hope that his meetings with heads of state in those regions helped him find a fair settlement the Canadian government could bring forward.
We noticed lately that upon a suggestion of the minister, Canada was willing to offer a peace-keeping force similar to the one we sent to Cyprus. Not very long ago, in the spring of 1967, the president of the United Arab Republic himself drove the Canadians out of his country.
I ignore whether President Nasser is now ready to accept the dispatch of a peacekeeping force from Canada or elsewhere.
Anyhow, it is urgent to solve the problem raised there which is not only a problem of borders. There is also indeed a problem of refugees. This year, Canada will be paying over $12 million as assistance to Palestinian refugees. This condition has been existing since partition and it seems that the problem will never be settled.
A great number of Palestinian refugees are now suffering from hunger as a result of that partition and I feel that it rests with those who are responsible for that unfortunate situation to cope with it.



IDENTIFICATION OF CRIMINALS ACT


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarlh (New Westminster) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-154, to amend the Identification of Criminals Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Douglas Aird Hogarth: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this bill generally is to amend the Identification of Criminals Act so that no person can be fingerprinted by the police without his consent until after he has been convicted of an indictable offence unless a judge under certain circumstances otherwise orders. As the law now stands he can be fingerprinted before he is convicted.


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

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

Mr. Skoberg: How many orders-in-council were passed by the federal government for the years 1950, 1955, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1967 and 1968?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Total number of orders-in-council for the years indicated are:
1950 15,121	1955 3,963	1960 3,674	1963 3,757	1964 3,994	1966 4,827	1967 4,056	1968 3,582
			of which				
8,938	2,116	1,877	1,836	1,951	2,364	1,654	1,230
were Treasury Board Minutes approved by to should not be ruled out, but no decision the Governor in Council.	has been taken at this time.


NATIONALIZATION OF YUKON ELECTRICAL COMPANY
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Is the federal government presently giving favourable consideration to the nationalization of the Yukon Electrical Company?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can advise that nationalization of the company referred


NATIONALIZATION OF WHITE PASS AND YUKON CORPORATION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Is the federal government presently giving favourable consideration to the nationalization of the White Pass and Yukon Corporation?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, I can advise that nationalization of the company referred

November 19, 1969
Questions
to should not be ruled out, but no decision has been taken at this time.


INVESTIGATION OF DRUG ADVERTISING
Mrs. Maclnnis: Is the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, under the Criminal Code provisions regarding deceptive advertising presently investigating the drug advertising in Canada and, if so, when will the investigation be completed, and will the results of the investigation be made public?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act has no authority to investigate offences under the Criminal Code. However, inquiries under the misleading advertising provisions of the Act, sections 33C and 33D, the latter of which came into force on July 31, 1969, and is the successor provision to section 306 of the Criminal Code, are instituted by the Director whenever he has reason to believe that an offence against either or both of these provisions has been committed. It is the practice, however, that no information is given out as to whether inquiries are being pursued in a particular industry unless and until a report is published or proceedings are instituted in the Courts.


PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION INVESTIGATIONS
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Has the Commission on Prices and Incomes undertaken investigations or studies on any specific sectors, areas or industries in Canada and, if so, what are these areas, and on what criteria or basis were they selected?
2.	Which personnel are involved in each of these areas?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I have been informed by the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission as follows: 1. and 2. On October 29, the Commission announced that it was undertaking a fact finding study of the Canadian steel industry. The purpose of this study is to investigate price, wage and other cost increases in the Canadian steel industry. This area was selected for study because it was felt that it would provide a good example of wage and price behaviour which has become very widespread in recent years. Commission personnel who are involved in this study include Mr. Leslie Reed, Mr. Donald Brazier, Mr. John Hague and Mr. Tom Houston. The study is under the supervision of the Vice-Chairman

of the Commission. Personnel from government departments and private groups will be involved in this study as required. Other areas of study are now being considered.


TEST CASES ON MISLEADING ADVERTISING
Mrs. Maclnnis: 1.	Which test cases are presently being prepared by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding misleading advertising in Canada under section 306 of the Criminal Code?
2.	On what basis are each of these cases being prepared?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. In view of the lack of jurisprudence relating to section 33D of the Combines Investigation Act and its predecessor, section 306 of the Criminal Code, virtually every case under inquiry by the Director of Investigation and Research which reaches the Courts will be a test case. It is the practice that no information is given out as to inquiries being pursued with respect to particular companies or individuals unless and until a report is published or proceedings are instituted in the Courts.
2. Inquiries under section 33D of the Act are instituted by the Director of Investigation and Research whenever he has reason to believe that an offence against the section has been committed.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS ON INTELSAT
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Government of Canada, through the Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, giving favourable consideration to the task force recommendations on Intelsat (a) that Intelsat should be transformed into a bigger, more comprehensive and better integrated system capable of providing total communications services for all nations (b) that no single country has the right to veto over any Intelsat decision and (c) that there be an international managerial staff for Intelsat?
2.	If not, what is the position of the Government of Canada on the above three areas?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General and Minister of Communications):: 1 (a) (b)
and (c) Three inter-governmental meetings have been held this year for the purpose of preparing definitive agreements that would supersede the interim agreements of 1964 governing the affairs of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT). Canadian delegations to these meetings have included representatives from the departments of Communications, External Affairs and the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation.
November 19, 1969

2. The positions taken by our delegations are along the general lines set forth in 1 (a), (b) and (c) of the question.


CANADIAN COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE-DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.S.R.
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Have there been any discussions between the Government of Canada and the Government of the U.S.S.R. regarding the launching of the Canadian communications satellite and, if so, what were the results of these discussions?
2.	If no discussions were held, when did the Government of Canada change its policy as announced to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on April 22, 1969, page 1,485 of the Committee's Proceedings, and for what reasons?


Eric William Kierans: 1. No.
2. The Government of Canada has not changed its policy regarding the launching of the Canadian communications satellite. Only two countries are able to place satellites in a geostationary orbit: the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. In fact, only the U.S.A. have achieved this objective. We have negotiated with success an agreement in principle and now Telesat is negotiating the commercial details.


DRUG PATENT LICENCES
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What applications have been received under the revised Patent Act for licences from the Patent Commissioner to manufacture or import and sell patented drugs, up to September 30, 1969?
2.	What applications have been approved or refused by the Patent Commissioner?
3.	What reasons were given for those drug patent applications that have been rejected?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Up to September 30, 1969 the Patent Office has received 50 applications for the grant of licences to manufacture or import and sell patented drugs under the revision to Section 41 of the Patent Act which became effective on June 27, 1969.
Applications have been received from the following applicants:	1 application from
Compagnie Pharmaceutique Vita Ltee, St. Romuald, Que.; 1 application from Frank W. Horner Limited, Montreal Que.; 4 applications from Inglis Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Rexdale, Ont.; 1 application from Laboratoire Medic Ltee, Ville de Laval, Que.; 1 application from Laboratoires PRO-DOC Ltee, Ville de Laval, Que.; 2 applications from Micro Chemicals Limited, Toronto, Ont.; 2 applications from Mowatt & Moore Limited, Pointe Claire,
Questions
Que.; 1 application from Neo Drug Company, Montreal, Que.; 9 applications from Novo-pharm Limited, Scarborough, Ont.; 1 application from Rocke William Cie Ltee, Montreal, Que.; 25 applications from S. & U. Chemicals Limited, Toronto, Ont.; 1 application from Trans-Canada Dermapeutics Ltd., Montreal, Que.; 1 application from Verdun Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Montreal, Que.
2.	No applications approved or refused up to September 30, 1969.
3.	Answered by 2.


COPPER PRICE INCREASES
Mr. Saltsman: Is the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs presently investigating the recent increases in copper prices in Canada and, if so, what have been the results of this investigation and is action contemplated under the Combines Investigation Act?
Hon, Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): It is the policy of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act to scrutinize all significant price movements which come to his attention and he is charged with the responsibility of initiating an investigation whenever he has reason to believe there has been an offence against the Act. It is the practice, however, that no information is given out as to whether an inquiry is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published.


ATOMIC EXPLOSION BY U.S. IN ALEUTIAN ISLANDS
Mr. Rose: Was the Government of Canada given any details or information by the United States Government why the Atomic Blast in the Aleutian Islands near Alaska was terribly important to the national security of the United States and, if so, what was this information?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.


FALSE ADVERTISING BY JACK ANTHONY
Mr. Saltsman: 1.	What criteria was used by the Combines Investigation Branch in charging Jack Anthony with false advertising?
2.	Did Mr. Anthony claim that the "jet ignition unit with transistors" would give "better gas mileage, easier starting and better performance"?
3.	Were tests undertaken by the Combines Investigation Branch to determine whether Mr. Anthony's claims were justified?
4.	If so, who undertook these tests, and what were the results?

November 19, 1969
Questions
5.	Is it the intention of the Combines Investigation Branch to test advertising claims made by manufacturing and other firms that "our gas gives better mileage" or that "our tires last longer", and similar advertising claims?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. Jack Anthony was charged with an offence under section 33d of the Combines Investigation Act following an investigation initiated by the Director of Investigation and Research. It was considered that the information obtained in the inquiry disclosed prima facie evidence of an offence.
2. The advertisement published on an Ottawa television station on behalf of Mr. Anthony which gave rise to the charge claimed that a "new jet ignition unit with transistors" was "Engineered to give better gas mileage, easier starting and better performance".
3 and 4. The Office of the Director of Investigation and Research arranged for tests to be made by the National Research Council. The tests showed the performance claims advertised were not true.
5.	The Director of Investigation and Research will investigate any advertising claim whenever he has reason to believe that any representation therein amounts to an offence against section 33c or 33d of the Combines Investigation Act.


COLOUR TELEVISION SET FIRES
Mr. Mather: 1.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare investigated reports of fires caused by colour television sets in the United States to determine whether similar occurrences have happened in Canada?
2.	If so, what are the results of this investigation and what action is contemplated by the Department?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, the Department
has investigated reports about spontaneous fires in color and black-and-white TV sets in the United States.
2. Information received from U.S. government agencies and the Canadian Electronics Industries Association, indicates 700 cases of fire among about 85,000,000 TV sets in use. Comparable figures for Canada are not yet complete. Inquiries with provincial health departments and fire marshals have so far revealed at least 12 cases. No action is contemplated by the Department of National Health and Welfare at the present time. The Department has been informed that the Canadian Standards Association is actively discussing the problem with Canadian suppliers with a view to minimizing the hazard.


APPOINTMENTS TO FEDERAL POSITIONS
Mr. Mather: In appointments to federal bodies, including the Economic Council of Canada, the Diplomatic Corps, the Judiciary, the Canadian Radio and Television Commission, is the government giving consideration to naming a due proportion of qualified women?


James Edgar Walker: Yes.


AGRICULTURE-TASK FORCE STUDIES
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	What special studies have been commissioned by the federal task force on agriculture?
2.	Were these studies competitively tendered and. if not, for what reason?
3.	What firms and/or individuals conducted the commissioned special studies?
4.	What was the completion date of such studies and how many are still being carried on?
5.	What is the expected completion date of all such studies presently commissioned?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1, 3 and 4.
Title
Contractor
Structure & Productive Capacity of Canadian Agriculture
Dairy Industry
Livestock, Poultry and the Feed Grain Economy
Wheat and Oil Seeds Economy Fruit and Vegetable Industry
Completion Date
Prof. Van Vliet (Univ. (not completed)
of Saskatchewan,
deceased)
Prof. Perkins (Univ. of 18 October 1968 Guelph)
Acres Research &	25 October 1968
Planning, Toronto
Hedlin, Menzies	23 December 1968
Winnipeg
Dr. Riverin (Univ. of 20 November 1968 Sherbrooke)

November 19, 1969

Title
Goals of Agricultural Policy
Federal-provincial and Interprovincial Relations in Agriculture in Canada Rural Poverty: Origins and Consequences for Canadian Agricultural Policy Position Paper No. 1-Location of Rural Poverty Groups in Canada & Implications for Rural Welfare Policies Position Paper No. 2-Socio-Cultural Dimensions of Rural poverty in Canada Position Paper No. 3-Values and Ideologies of Rural French Canada:
An Analysis of Social Change Position Paper No. 4-Vocational and Educational Aspirations and Achievements of Rural Youth
Position Paper No. 5-Poverty Sector in Agriculture
Farm Credit in Canada
Trade Policy
Demand and Supply
Long Range Projections of Demand
Factors Affecting the Formulation and Implementaiton of Canadian Agricultural Policy
Review and Analysis of Government Assistance to Agriculture Marketing Boards
Agriculture in the Western European
Countries
Agribusiness
Alternative Land Use Patterns for Prairie Provinces in 1980
Assessment of Current and Prospective Trade Patterns, Supply and Demand Situations for Cattle and Beef, Hogs and Pork, with Reference to Canada's Competitive Position in the North American Market
2. The studies were not competitively tendered in the sense of a public invitation. In view of the urgency of the work, time limitations and the need for research expertise in specialized areas of study, the Task Force solicited study proposals from persons known 21362-63
Questions
Contractor	Completion Date
Prof. Thair (Univ. of Saskatchewan)	22 October 1968
M. Daneau (Univ. of Laval)	18 December 1968
Prof. Harp (Carleton University)	18 December 1968
Dr. Rogers (Univ. of Alberta)	12 August 1968
Dr. Connor (Ottawa)	25 July 1968
Prof. Tremblay (Univ. of Laval)	6 August 1968
Prof. Kristjanson (Univ. of Manitoba)	15 October 1968
Dr. Helen Buckley (D .B .S.-Ottawa)	15 February 1969
Prof. Baker (Univ. of Illinois)	8 October 1968
Prof. Eastman (Univ. of Toronto)	9 April 1969
Dr. Haver (McGill Univ.)	(not completed)
Dr. Cavin (Washington, U.S.A.)	30 June 1968
Dr. Whalen (Memorial Univ. of Newfoundland)	20 September 1968
Dr. Hudson (Ottawa)	15 November 1968
Dr. Hiscocks (C.D.A.) and Dr. Walker	prelim. 22 Jan. 1969
Dr. Fischer (MacDonald College)	1 May 1969
Mr. A. Patterson (Univ. of Western Ontario)	19 September 1969
Asst. Prof. A. Wilson (Univ. of Saskatchewan)	10 August 1969
Prof. R. G. Marshall (Univ. of Guelph)	24 June 1969
to be knowledgeable in particular subjects. The proposals were examined critically for content and cost and in some cases rejected or revised and new proposals solicited from the same or other parties.

November 19, 1969
Questions
5.	Only one study (Demand and Supply) is outstanding. Completion date is uncertain.


EMIGRATION OF CANADIAN DOCTORS TO THE UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 247

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
1.	Was the statement of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that Canada would lose doctors to the United States of the government exerted pressure to lower doctors' fees based on a study done for the government and, if so, is the government prepared to table the study?
2.	Has the government discussed with the United States the possibility of joint action to lower doctors' fees and, if so, what has been the response?
John Carr Munro: 1. No.
2. No.


DAIRY INDUSTRY-SUBSIDIES PAID TO DAIRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	What is the amount of the subsidy paid by the Canadian Dairy Commission to commercial milk producers between April 1, 1969 and August 31, 1969?
2.	What amount was deducted from the subsidy for export duty during the same period?
3.	What amount was deducted from the subsidy by virtue of the .52(5 per 100 lb. tax for production exceeding quotas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. Net subsidy payments to milk and cream shippers, after deductions of holdbacks for export equalization costs, covering deliveries reported for the months of April to August, inclusive, totalled $44,350,000.
2.	Deductions for export equalization costs on account of deliveries during the period were $13,022,000.
3.	Deductions by virtue of the 52 cent holdback on milk deliveries in excess of quota are not recorded separately.


AIR POLLUTION-AUTOMOTIVE CONTROLS
Mr. Salisman: 1.	Has the Combines Investigation Branch of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs undertaken an investigation in Canada to determine whether the four leading auto manufacturers have been conspiring for over a decade to delay the development and use of devices to control automotive air pollution and, if so, what are the results of this investigation and what action is contemplated?
2.	If no investigation has been undertaken, what are the reasons?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. The Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act is aware of the proceedings in the United States. In accordance with the usual practice, any information of this nature coming to the attention of the Director is carefully considered to determine whether he has reason to believe there has been an offence against the Act so as to warrant formal inquiry. The practice is, however, that no information is given out as to whether an inquiry is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies unless and until a report is published or proceedings are instituted in the Courts.
2. See answer to 1.


INVESTIGATION INTO PRICE FIXING BY NEWSPRINT COMPANIES
Mr. Salisman: Is the Combines Investigation Branch undertaking an investigation into the recent announced identical price increases on newsprint to determine possible price fixing among the newsprint companies and, if so, what are the results of this investigation and what action is contemplated?


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is the policy of the Director of Investigation and Research under the Combines Investigation Act to scrutinize all significant price movements which come to his attention and he is charged with the responsibility of initiating an investigation whenever he has reason to believe there has been no offence against the Act. It is the practice, however, that no information is given out as to whether an inquiry is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published.


EQUIPMENT, DEFENCE AND COASTGUARD SHIPS AIDING FISHERIES DEPARTMENT FLEET
Mr. Crouse: Will the ships from National Defence and the Coast Guard to be used in aid of the Department of Fisheries and Forestry fleet be supplied with the technical equipment that Fisheries Department boats now carry?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Departments of National Defence and Transport as follows: Consolida-
November 19, 1969

tion of the Federal Fleets is under study. It is not possible at this time, to say whether or not Canadian Forces vessels will require to be fitted with technical equipment in support of the Department of Forestry and Fisheries' fleet. Any Canadian Coastguard vessels used to assist the Department of Fisheries from time to time would be supplied with appropriate technical equipment to the extent that the Department of Fisheries require.


RENOVATION OF OLD CUSTOMS BUILDING, CALGARY
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What was the cost of the renovation of the top floor of the old Customs Building in Calgary which was carried out approximately a year ago?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the renovation now taking place on the first and second floors?
3.	What use is to be made of this renovated building?
4.	Is a cafe or cafeteria being provided for in this building and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. $110,140.15.
2.	A contract for $411,996 has been awarded for renovations on the first, second and third floors.
3.	The Customs Building, located at 11th Avenue and First Street will house offices for Customs, the Food and Drug Directorate, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Public Works.
4.	An area is being provided in this building that can be used as a lunchroom or a canteen, but the level of service, if any, that will be provided is dependent on an investigation that is now underway.


PATROL OF ARCTIC WATERS
Mr. Thomson: With reference to a question asked of the Minister of National Defence at page 25 of Hansard, what are the reasons the Canadian Government does not engage in regular patrols of Canadian Arctic waters?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: The Canadian Forces carry out a planned surveillance patrol program in the Arctic. To be effective the patrols must be carried out at irregular intervals, on ever changing geographical patrol patterns.
21362-63J
Questions


NEW ARMED FORCES UNIFORMS
Mr. Harkness: 1.	What is the total dollar value of clothing now on order by the Department of National Defence to convert all our armed service into green uniforms in place of khaki, navy blue and air force blue?
2.	How much money has now been spent and how much more will be spent during the next twelve months to purchase green great coats for all defence personnel?
3.	How many great coats in the old colours of khaki, navy blue and air force blue are presently in service and how many of these coats are in stores?
4.	How many great coats for army, navy and air force have been destroyed, condemned or otherwise disposed of during the past two years; how many of these coats were actually worn out and how many of them were destroyed, condemned, sold or otherwise disposed of simply for reasons of colour?
5.	On whose orders are uniforms and great coats condemned, destroyed or disposed of?
6.	What inspection authority certifies that uniforms and great coats are worn out or unserviceable?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1. Treasury Board has approved procurement of the new uniform at a maximum cost of $25 million. As of September 30 1969, $17,840,317 had been committed to this program. The total estimated cash expenditure for this program is now $22.4 million. During the re-equipping period, expenditures on the old style uniforms will be sharply reduced, and partially offset the cost of the new ones by some $14 million.
2.	As of September 30, 1969, $79,031 has been spent against a commitment of $1,812,500. Depending on deliveries, expenditures over the next twelve months, will probably increase to between $800,000 and $900,000.
3.	All serving male members of the Armed Forces, as of July 31, 1969, are equipped with the old style service greatcoat. Current depot holdings are Navy, 3,257; Army, 199,422; Air Force, 22,876. Attention is directed to the reply given to part 5 of Mr. Marshall's question 2,654, at page 11689, in Hansard dated October 22, 1969. The large army holdings are a direct reflection of former policies concerning mobilization reserves.
4.	The policy outlined in the above reference has been in effect for two years. Therefore, with the exception of worn out garments deemed to be unfit for future use or long term storage, no greatcoats have been disposed of, and none in any event because of colour.

November 19, 1969
Questions
5.	Worn out clothing is condemned and disposed of as complete items through CADC on the direction of the local Base or Station Commander in accordance with established Canadian Forces Headquarters directives and policies. Surplus clothing at Bases, Stations, or Depots is disposed of on direction of CFHQ only.
6.	The senior Supply and Technical Officer at each Base or Station is charged with the responsibility of determining whether used clothing is serviceable and suitable for further use or non-serviceable.


DESIGNATION OF LOYAL EDMONTON REGIMENT
Mr. Lamberl (Edmonton: West):
If the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada are to be redesignated as the 3rd Battalion PPCLI, what is the proposed designation of the Loyal Edmonton Regiment now the 3rd Battalion of the PPCLI?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is probable that the Loyal Edmonton Regiment (3rd Battalion PPCLI) will be redesignated as the 4th Battalion, but this question is now under study in consultation with the Colonel of the Regiment.


CUMBERLAND-COLCHESTER NORTH-HARBOUR AND RIVER PROJECTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What projects have been carried out by the Harbours and Rivers Division of the Department of Public Works in the present fiscal year in Cum-berland-Colchester North and what has been the cost of each project undertaken?
2.	How many projects wil be undertaken in Cum-berland-Colehester North before the end of the present fiscal year that have not as yet been either started or completed and what is the estimated cost of each?


Arthur Laing: 1.
Location	Project	CostParrsboro	Wharf repairs	$ 300.00Spencer's Island	Approach repairs	50.00Joggins	Barricade	75.00Pugwash	Paving	28,518.85Pugwash	Dredging	46,993.00Wallace	Derricks	724.00Five Island	Wharf repairs	3000.00Pugwash	Freight Shed repairs	800.00*LEASING OF STANLEY ISLAND	SALES TAX ON AIRCRAFT PURCHASES


Mr. Nesbitt: Have leasing arrangements been made with respect to Stanley Island on the St. Lawrence River, being part of the St. Regis Indian Reserve and, if so, what measures are being undertaken by the government to ensure that the situation is remedied and that such exploitation does not take place in the future?


Russell Clayton Honey: Mr. Speaker, yes, a lease has been in effect since 1899 for a term of 99 years. The St. Regis band council has retained a firm of solicitors to act on its behalf to inquire into the validity of the leasing arrangement. For some years the department has endeavoured to discourage long-term leases but in the final analysis the decision remains with the Indian people in keeping with the policy of encouraging them to make their own decisions.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): 1.	Did the Minister of National Revenue or any of his officials have discussions with or consult with representatives of Canadian airlines before rescinding the imposition of a 12 percent sales tax on aircraft purchases destined for international flights and, if not, what were the reasons for such non consultation?
2.	Have representations since been made outlining the serious financial hardship imposed on many airlines who are committed to purchases based on the prior regulations and suggesting an extension of some months to allow the airlines time to arrange for these additional funds, not otherwise budgeted for?
3.	Why was the decision made to now impose the sales tax and why by administrative action?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The 12 percent sales tax has not been descinded on aircraft purchased for
November 19, 1969

international flights. Order in Council P.C. 1966-18/1495 was the result of a series of discussions with the airlines and was designed to exempt from sales tax aircraft used both in domestic and international services based on the percentage of total mileage logged in international service. After two years of operation in this manner, one of the airlines challenged our procedure and contended that the Order in Council completely exempted aircraft even though they were used domestically as well as internationally. We are requiring payment of sales tax at time of importation as provided in the Customs Act and the Order in Council, with subsequent refund on the basis outlined above.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to Question 1.


PLANS FOR POST OFFICE BUILDING, VEGREVILLE
Mr, Mazankowski: Have any concrete plans been considered for the construction of a federal post office building in Vegreville and, if so, when might construction commence?


Arthur Laing: This project is now being reviewed as to economic advisability and priority. The date of commencement of construction is dependent upon the results of this review.


NATIONAL DEFENCE BUILDING CONTRACT
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Has a contract been awarded in relation to the construction of National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa and, if so (a) were tenders called in this connection (b) to whom has the contract been awarded (c) what is the amount of money involved (d) how many bids were received (e) what were the amounts of these bids?
2.	If no tenders were called, what method was used to award the contract?


Arthur Laing: 1. Yes. (a) Yes; (b) Louis Donolo Inc., Montreal, Que.; (c) $27,127,000; (d) Five; (e) Louis Donolo Inc., $27,127,000; Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd., $27,761,000; Pigott Construction Co. Ltd., $28,100,000; V. K. Mason Construction Ltd., $28,425,000; Omega Construction Co. Ltd., $28,600,000.
2. Not applicable.
Motions for Papers QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


RESEARCH STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gleave: 1.	For the fiscal years 1968-69 and 1969-70, what specific research studies have been undertaken by the Economic Branch of the Department of Agriculture?
2.	Who are the individuals involved in these studies and when is it anticipated that these studies will be completed?
Return tabled.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 13, 40, 77 and 79 are acceptable to the government.

A. A. SOLOOJEE IMMIGRATION APPLICATION Motion No. 13-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Department of Manpower and Immigration and Dr. A. A. Soloojee of South Africa regarding his application for immigration to Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 40-Mr. Benjamin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the brief presented to the Government of Canada protesting against the purchase of a 51% interest in Computer Sciences Canada Ltd. of Ottawa by Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 77-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all directives issued recently by the Treasury Board to all federal government departments and agencies regarding manpower adjustment guidelines in the federal service.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
November 19, 1969
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 79-Mr. Barnett:
That an Order of the House do issue for a list of the 43 National Design Council scholarships and grants referred to in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce press release of August 27, 1969.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 82 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 82 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following: The correspondence requested relates to matters of a commercial character concerning negotiation between private companies and Telesat Canada, an independent corporation, and it would accordingly not be appropriate or in the public interest to publish it. I would, therefore, hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: would rather that you put it to a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish that the matter be transferred for debate?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,
Mr. Speaker. I ask that it be put to a vote.
MISTASSINI INDIAN TRIBE Motion No. 82-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence since January 1, 1966 between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec regarding the Mistassini Indian tribe in northern Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 6, 7, 12, 21, 33, 46, 52, 57, 65, 74, 78, 84, 91, 98, 99, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 129, 148, 162, 172, 175, 203 and 204?
I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


TELESAT CANADA-FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION OF COMMUNICATION COMMON CARRIERS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Department of Communications and common communication carriers regarding financial participation in Telesat Canada Corporation.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the hon. member's request, I wonder if there is a corresponding request to have it transferred to debate. All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


TELESAT CANADA-UNDERWRITERS' PROPOSALS REGARDING ISSUE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 7-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all proposals submitted to the Government of Canada by various underwriters regarding the handling of the Telesat Canada Corporation issue.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move the motion on the hon. member's behalf.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following. No proposals have been received by the government of Canada from underwriters regarding the handling of the Telesat Canada Corporation issue. I would, therefore, hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: agree.


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


INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by Ronald Ritchie on an international research institute for Canada.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, there is no

November 19, 1969
Motions for Papers
report by Ronald Ritchie on an international research centre for Canada. Mr. Ritchie was engaged, however, by the government, as announced by the Prime Minister on November 7, 1968, to prepare a report on "the establishment of a Research Institute where long term research and thinking can be undertaken on governmental matters of all kinds". That report is not yet available, but is expected to be submitted shortly. The government will then have to consider whether it is in the public interest that it be made public. I would hope that in these circumstances the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion at this time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: will withdraw the motion subject to the right of the hon. member to put it on the order paper later if he feels he should.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
NATO COMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM Motion No. 21-Mr. Lewis:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the memorandum of agreement among eight participating NATO countries, including Canada, regarding the second phase of the NATO communications research program established in 1967.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, the document referred to in this motion is a memorandum of understanding between the governments concerned and is classified confidential. Subject to the receipt of unanimous consent of the participating governments, I have no objection to tabling this document.


Mr. Lewis:: I am satisfied to allow this motion to stand until the minister has found out whether he has consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed the motion will stand?


David Lewis: Agreed.
Motion stands.
MINAS BASIN POWER STUDY Motion No. 33-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the feasibility study on Minas Basin power prepared in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that the report on Minas Basin power is now being completed by the Atlantic Tidal Power Programming Board.
This report was to have been completed within the next three or four weeks, but its completion is not now anticipated until the end of the calendar year. On completion, the report will be printed as rapidly as possible.
Once the report has been printed, the board is required to submit it to the governments of Canada, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. The consent of all three governments will be required to have this report made public; and presumably such consent will not be given until appropriate representatives of the three governments concerned have had an opportunity to examine the report and to assess its implications. Under the circumstances, I ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
INFORMATION Motion No. 46-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the special task force report on Information.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the report of the task force on government information was tabled in the House by the Prime Minister on November 4. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. member will agree to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, in agreeing to withdraw the motion I should like to expess regret that the government is not in a position to produce as speedily the reports in the other 100 motions.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES Motion No. 52-Mr. Harding:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of recent correspondence between the Canadian Energy Board and the United States Federal Power Commission regarding the supply of natural gas from Western Canada to the United States.
November 19, 1969


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that no correspondence has passed between the National Energy Board and the United States federal power commission regarding the supply of natural gas from western Canada to the United States. Under the circumstances, I ask that the hon. member be requested to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Harding:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
FORMULATION OF NEW PETROLEUM POLICY Motion No. 57-Mr. Thomson:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the special task force report on the formulation of Canada's new petroleum policy.


Robert John (Bud) Orange: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources knows of no special task force concerned with the formulation of Canada's new petroleum policy. I therefore request that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Thomson:: Agreed, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
INDIAN AFFAIRS POLICY STATEMENT Motion No. 65-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all notes made at all meetings or conversations between the government or any agency or department thereof and any provincial government or agency or department thereof since June 25, 1969 relating to the policy statement on Indian Affairs made in the House of Commons by the Hon. Jean Chretien, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on June 25, 1969.


Russell Clayton Honey: The hon. member is requesting copies of notes or conversations between the federal government and the provincial government. Conversations which have taken place up to now, other than that correspondence which will be tabled in the motion for the production of papers No. 63, are considered privileged information and it would not be in the interest of the governments or 21362-64
Motions for Papers
indeed the Indian people to table this information at this stage of negotiations. Under the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I oppose that request. I simply say the government has no right whatever to engage in negotiations regarding the rights of the Indian people and keep them secret. I cannot accept the request to withdraw the motion. It is too important.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
NATIONAL HEALTH MANPOWER CONFERENCE Motion No. 74-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all reports and papers presented to the National Health Manpower Conference in October, 1969 which was sponsored by the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has advised the hon. member for Winnipeg North that a report containing this material will be published a little later. In the light of that assurance, the member for Winnipeg North would like me to ask that the motion be withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
CABINET COMMITTEES Motion No. 91-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of all Cabinet Committees of the Government of Canada and the federal Ministers belonging to each of these committees, as mentioned by the Prime Minister at a Press Conference on October 15, 1969 at the National Press Building.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move this motion on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, it has always been the position of this House that the arrangements made by the cabinet for the discharge of the business for which it is collectively responsible are matters for the cabinet itself and are not customarily disclosed. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. member will agree to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No,


Mr.   Speaker.Mr. Speaker@: Transferred for debate.

November 19, 1969
Motions for Papers
SENATE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON NEWS MEDIA Motion No. 98-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House the amount of estimated expenditures for the Senate Special Committee on the Media for the fiscal years 1969-70, 1970-71.


Stanley Howard Knowles: move this motion, sir, on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which relates to this motion and motions numbered 99 and 148, the hon. member is requesting information which relates to proceedings in the Senate. I wish to refer to citation 212 at page 178 of Beau-chesne's fourth edition, which reads:
If one House desires any return relating to the business or proceedings of the other, neither courtesy nor custom allows such a return to be ordered; but an arrangement is generally made, by which the return is moved for in the other House; and after it has been presented, a message is sent to request that it may be communicated.
At page 282 of Bourinot's fourth edition, there are words to the same effect. There are also words to the same effect at pages 271 and 272 of May's 17th edition. That passage refers to the courtesy and custom in this regard. I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, to agree to withdrawing motions numbered 98, 99 and 148 and I will undertake to have the Government Leader of the other place present the appropriate motions in the other place so that the information will be forthcoming.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
the light of that undertaking, I am happy to agree.
Orders discharged and motions withdrawn.


CONSULTANT STUDIES, DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 104-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all outside consultant studies undertaken for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs as mentioned in answer to Question No. 1,323, tabled on June 25, 1969, as reported in Hansard on page 10597.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 104, and indeed the succeeding 19, will be recognized as motions upon which the House made a decision on the last day of the last session.

The House will recall at that time I suggested the hon. member might indicate specific reports to which he would like a response. I note that in motions 183 to 193 inclusive and 209 to 235 inclusive, the hon. member has specifically requested some of the same documents. On the basis of that I wonder if the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing this request in motions 104 to 123 for this great volume of material. We then would give consideration to the new requests he has made.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could allow these motions to stand while I consider them.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motions stand.


&quot;TELECOMMISSION&quot; REPORT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 124-Mr. Peters:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report of the Department of Communications "Telecommission" regarding the relationship between common carriers and computer companies.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Communications I wish to report the following: The Department of Communications Telecommission study regarding the relationship between common carriers and computer companies is still in progress. When completed it will be made available unless the authors or sources specifically withhold prmission.
I would, therefore, hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Peters:: Stand.


COMMON CARRIERS AND COMPUTER SERVICE COMPANIES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 129-Mr. Gilbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the special study undertaken by the Department of Communications regarding the relationship between common carriers and computer service companies.
Yves Forest: 23, 1969, which refers to the same subject. I would, therefore, hope that the hon. member would consent to withdraw this motion.


Mr. Gilbert:: Stand the motion.
Motion stands.


MESSAGE TO GENERAL GOWON
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 162-Mr. Nystrom:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the message sent by the Prime Minister to General Gowon, as reported in Hansard on July 2, 1969, page 10751.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion on behalf of the hon. member.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, communications between heads of government are normally confidential and their contents not made public. In any case, such action cannot be taken unilaterally. In the circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary has just said action cannot be taken unilaterally. Could not the Prime Minister request the consent of General Gowon to this?


James Edgar Walker: That is another question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it dropped?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.
Put it to the vote, please.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


LETTER FROM PRIME MINISTER TO CHAIRMAN OF SCIENCE COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 203-Mr. Broadbenl:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the November 4, 1968 letter by the Prime Minister of Canada to the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada as mentioned in the Third Annual Report of the Science Council.
Stanley Howard Knowles: move this motion for the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, the letter from the Prime Minister to the Chairman of the Science Council of Canada is related to the internal functions of the government and not in the public interest to be released. In view of the long established principle of the House that such documents are privileged perhaps 21362-64^
Inquiries of the Ministry the hon. member would be agreeable to having his motion withdrawn.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps he would not be.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it should be transferred for debate.


CABINET DIRECTIVE ON SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 204-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Cabinet Directive on summer empolyment for students referred to by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his Press Release of April 30, 1969.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion for the hon. member.


James Edgar Walker: Mr. Speaker, a cabinet directive is a cabinet document. It has always been the position of this House that cabinet documents would not be included among those documents covered by motions for the production of papers. I would hope, therefore, that the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that this was referred to in a press release I do not think this caveat covers the situation. Perhaps you would put this to a vote, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped we would have the privilege of having the Minister of Finance in the House today. In his absence, perhaps the Prime Minister would answer the questions of which he took notice yesterday. I asked these questions: In view of the forecast of substantial price increases ranging from 1 per cent to 25 per cent in 1970, what is the position of the government and, specifically, will the government, in cooperation with the Prices and Incomes Commission, now define what restraint consists of so that corporations and others will know what is expected of them by the government?

November 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Herb Gray (Minisler without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the question would
appear to come primarily within the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He was here a moment ago. I understand he will be prepared to deal with it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be argumentative, but how is one supposed to get an answer relating to government policy when the ministers seem to be so difficult to find?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the reappearing Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the indicated intention of some 250 corporations to increase their prices substantially in 1970, what is the position of the government? Is the government now prepared to define what restraint consists of so that corporations and others will know what the government expects of them in complying with a policy of restraint?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as I explained before in the House, the Prices and Incomes Commission is trying to negotiate with private interests or economic groups a definition of what is acceptable restraint or constraint. I am hopeful-and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition joins me in this- that the work of the commission on this project will succeed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the position of the government is that announced by the minister the other day, that any increase in price constitutes a violation of restraints, or does the government support the position taken by the Prices and Incomes Commission that increases up to 5 per cent in the case of wages and 2J per cent in the case of prices would appear to be a reasonable ceiling?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have read the speech of the chairman of the commission, which was made in Regina. The figures the Leader of the Opposition quotes were mentioned in that speech as only one proposal the commission was discussing. I think it was made clear in the speech that that was a negotiating position. My position simply is I would hope that those making price and income decisions would sit down as quickly as possible with the commission to work out what would be acceptable restraint.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question in an effort to make sure there is no misunderstanding. The government, in fact, has no specific policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: 
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government's position has not changed since a few weeks ago when I answered that the government closes no door on any procedure to combat inflation, I mentioned the defects in the approach suggested by the leader of the New Democratic Party, but I have not excluded any alternative open to the government which we will consider and use if necessary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the speech by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission dealt solely with a ceiling on prices and wages, is the government directing the Commission to study, or is the government itself making a study, of the question of restraints upon other forms of income such as corporation profits, dividends, interest and rents, or is any study of restraints being restricted entirely to salaries, wages and prices?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the constitutional difficulties are as great whether we are dealing with wages or with rents.


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: In view of the constitutional difficulties which always seem to arise when the question of prices or incomes control is brought up, can the Prime Minister indicate whether he is meeting with the provinces in order to bring about some changes in the constitution along this line?
November 19, 1969	COMMONS
Are the federal government and the provinces trying to reach agreement on this subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member might have heard that we have been discussing the constitution with the provinces for some time.


Max Saltsman: Can the Prime Minister indicate specifically what progress the federal government is making with the provinces along these lines?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Can he tell this House whether the United States have violated the Treaty prohibiting nuclear tests, signed in 1963, by carrying out the Schooner Project in 1968 which caused radioactive fallout in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member that his question, as it is phrased, is out of order.


BIAFRA-AID FOR STARVING CHILDREN
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but before asking it I should like to join in welcoming him back to the House. Can the minister say whether or not during the course of his visitations in the Middle East he communicated at any time with any representatives of Biafra or of Nigeria in order to bring about some arrangement whereby action will be taken by Canada to diminish some of the awfulness of the escalating suffering and death among children in Biafra in consequence of the shortage of food?


Mitchell William Sharp: I found myself fairly busy in looking into the problems in the Middle East when I was in that area, but before I went there I had extensive discussions with all those concerned, the Nigerians, the Bia-frans, the great powers and the representatives of Africa. I probably spoke to 25 or 30 of the leading spokesmen concerned with this problem. In my absence, of course, the Prime Minister and my officials have been carrying on these discussions. Unfortunately, while there seems to be some indication of progress
DEBATES	looi
Inquiries of the Ministry toward a settlement, one cannot be very sure. There have been so many disappointments in the past. But I do think it is wise, if possible, to depend upon the immediate neighbours of Nigeria to take on the prime responsibility, as has been urged upon us by the Secretary General of the United Nations.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs let the House and the country know the names of the representatives of Biafra with whom he spoke at the United Nations or before the meeting of the United Nations? To whom did he speak from Biafra?


Mitchell William Sharp: I have forgotten their names for the time being, Mr. Speaker, but tomorrow I will be happy to give them. There were five of them and they included the leading representatives of Biafra in New York.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, shortly before the minister left for his tour of the Middle East he indicated that he was awaiting a report from General Wrinch on the possible resumption of air operations by the International Red Cross. Now that General Wrinch and the minister have returned, I wonder whether the minister has received a report from the general and what prospects there are in that direction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met General Wrinch this morning in my office and he continued his discussions with my officials after I had to move on to another meeting. I discussed with him the possibilities of an air drop and of other forms of help which the International Red Cross might undertake in co-operation with the local authorities on both sides of the conflict.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Did General Wrinch indicate to the minister when the Red Cross will be able to resume operations and whether or not they have obtained the necessary agreement from the combatants for such a relief operation?


Mitchell William Sharp: That is the subject matter about which I spoke to General Wrinch, particularly today. Needless to say I was not very hopeful because we do not seem to have been able to put enough pressure upon the Biafran regime to agree to daylight flights, which is the only way I know by which sufficient aid can be brought to those starving people.
November 19, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I have a further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether agreement was obtained from the Red Cross according to a plan negotiated with the Biafrans in midAugust of this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: The only agreement that was reached by the Red Cross was a signed agreement with Nigeria.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Which one?


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Lotbiniere have a supplementary question?


Mr. Fortin:: No, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO CONTINENTAL POLICY
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: was going to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, but since he is absent I will put it to the Prime Minister. It relates to the government's policy for the petroleum industry. I see the minister has promised to set up an advisory committee to the government to be drawn from the Canadian Petroleum Association. Is the Canadian government now suggesting and advocating a continental oil policy and has the United States indicated that they too favour such a policy at this time?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The department will be answering questions tomorrow and on Friday with regard to this matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? This is his government. I am asking whether this is the policy of his government, and has there been any discussion with the United States with regard to a continental oil policy? Surely, that is a simple question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: 
Stanley Ronald Basford: The consumers' interest is always represented in this government.


An hon. Member:: I think the word is "misrepresented".


Max Saltsman: We know that the government has been making statements to this effect, but we want more specific evidence of it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Max Saltsman: May I rephrase my question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat? The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I put this question to the Prime Minister? Can he assure us that the discussions between Canada and the United States regarding a continental oil policy are not connected directly or indirectly with the question of water export from Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I know of no such connection.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any effort on the part of the government or is it a matter of government policy to create a relationship between the export of natural gas from Canada on the one hand and the raising of the upper limit on imports of Canadian oil by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot answer this question, Mr. Speaker. I think the minister may be able to do so when he is in the House.


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the reports that the price of natural gas will increase sharply, is it the minister's intention to intervene in this area to ensure that the cost of natural gas does not increase as a result of the demand in the United States?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member asked a similar question, I believe, in the last session there has been consultation
November 19, 1969	COMMONS
between my officials and those of Energy, Mines and Resources on this question.


Max Saltsman: As a supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might return to the hon. member if there is time, but at this point we are running short of time for the question period.




Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has been reported that a Brigadier Donald Ketcheson has said that during his time of service with the International Control Commission in Viet Nam, in 1958 and 1959, he regularly furnished the American CIA with information about troop movements and that the Canadian Department of External Affairs was aware of this and looked the other way. Would the minister investigate this matter, report to the House and give an assurance that this sort of conduct will not be tolerated in the future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it these events related to the period 1958-59, and as far as I know the Canadian government has always acted scrupulously in this respect. Certainly, I know of no repetition. As I read the report it concerned an officer who said he had done this, not with the consent of the Canadian government but behind their backs.


BROADCASTING. FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CYC-SUGGESTED BROADENING OF COMMITTEE'S TERMS OF REFERENCE
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Considering that the serious charges made by the chairman of the Executive Committee of Montreal against the Company of Young Canadians are of a judicial nature, and considering that the committee which is investigating this matter is concerned only with the legislative and administrative
DEBATES	1003
Inquiries of the Ministry aspects, does the Prime Minister intend to extend terms of reference of the committee so that Mr. Saulnier can testify without interfering with the committee's proceedings?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that a similar question has been asked a few days ago. I am not sure whether it has been answered but, if an answer has not already been given, it could perhaps be given now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember either whether this particular question has been answered, but the situation remains the same. Parliament has given the committee terms of reference it thought justified. We believe that it belongs to the committee to examine the organisation and operation of the Company of Young Canadians and to submit a report to the government. We believe that this parliamentary committee should not inquire into matters of subversion and other indictable offences. Of course, the administration of justice is aimed at insuring that those who might be found guilty of indictable offences are prosecuted in court. It is not the role of the parliamentary committee, as we understand it, to inquire and make sure that such prosecutions are carried on.


STATEMENT BY MINISTER TO WINNIPEG &quot;FREE PRESS&quot; ON SALES
Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Lang), but in his absence possibly the Prime Minister would like to answer it. I want to ask if he was stating government policy when he told the Winnipeg Free Press the other day that grain sales would not help the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore.


Albert C. (Bert) Cadieu: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the Prime Minister think that farmers can make a living for themselves and their families running skating rinks or trout farms on their land?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member is seeking to continue the debate we had yesterday. I suggest this cannot be done during the question period.

November 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY


STATUS OF WATERS BETWEEN ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON AND CANADA
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Soulh Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did he or any of his officials hold discussions recently with officials of the French government concerning the status of the water which lies between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada and, if so, will fishing be permitted in this area? Will it be within the traditional three-mile limit or will the 12-mile limit apply?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously there is a problem related to the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon because we have a 12-mile fishing limit around our coast. We would therefore, have to negotiate a median line between those islands and Newfoundland. We have been having some discussions with the French government, but these discussions are not yet concluded.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: As
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister discuss with his colleagues the possibility of resolving these problems by making an offer to the French government to buy these islands?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that federal sales tax auditors have not made annual inspections or audits of many Canadian companies, for up to as long as four or five years, and that in many cases when they do these audits they reassess the companies for thousands of dollars in taxes, what steps is the minister taking to overcome this problem and to make sure that there will be more frequent and regular inspections?


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to indicate to the minister and to the hon. member who asked the question that it should be more properly answered by way of a statement on motions or, if there is urgency to it which is not apparent to the Chair, the matter might be debated at the time of adjournment.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Ten o'clock.


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonion West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
Can he tell the House whether the government has consulted the provinces and has been able to reach a consensus prior to announcing the grant of $50 million for the promotion of education in the official language of Canada's minorities?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, consultations were already under way. For instance, the ministerial committee on the constitutional conference had already met on this subject at the end of last May. The provincial ministers had then asked the federal government to clarify its attitude with regard to the royal commission's recommendations and state a policy giving figures on the financial contribution it intended to make.
This was done at the last meeting held on November 6, and the department is now conducting negotiations with almost every provincial government, as requested by them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would the Secretary of State tell the house why exchanges and agreements are so hard to come by, at the secondary level, with respect to university students of a province following university courses in another province? Universities have run into an impasse.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this problem is related to the policy involved. This matter seems to come under provincial jurisdiction and I could not explain to the hon. member why they encounter such difficulties, since these have not been engendered by nor are they known to the federal government. As a matter of fact, this matter does not come under its purview.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REQUEST THAT HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT BE PLACED ON CONFERENCE AGENDA
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingaie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister agree-he shakes his head already, Mr. Speaker, even though I
November 19, 1989

have not asked my question-to consult with the provinces with a view to having the area of human resource development placed on the agenda for the upcoming federal-provincial conference so that Bill C-179, which has been withdrawn, and the whole matter of involvement in education of human resources will be discussed with the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know what that is supplementary to, but the question having been asked I suppose we should not lose the time and should allow the question to be answered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, at some point we will have discussed with the provinces all aspects of the constitution, including the one mentioned by the hon. member. The agenda which has been agreed to at this stage between the provinces and the federal government does not include this particular subject for the December conference, but of course there will be subsequent conferences.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, Your Honour wondered what the supplementary was about. Frequently when we raise questions relating to education-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did not wonder what it was about. In any event, it might be simpler if the hon. member would recognize that I have allowed the question. Now I have to give my daily admonition that we will shortly be running out of time for the question period and I have to count on the co-operation of hon. members.


BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS CYC-SUGGESTED BROADENING OF COMMITTEE'S TERMS OF REFERENCE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question resulting from the answer he gave to an hon. member of the Creditiste Party in connection with the examination of the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. As I understood him, he said that it was not proper for a committee of this House to inquire into certain types of activities of the CYC and I should like to ask him why this should be so and if he feels that it is proper for him, as chief commoner in this House apart from yourself, Mr. Speaker, to give directions to any committee as to what it should or should not examine.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not give any directions, Mr. Speaker. I
Inquiries of the Ministry said quite the contrary, that the terms of reference of the committee had been given by this House and that we do not propose to change them at this time.


Mr. Valade:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie will excuse me-

-but the hon. member for Skeena is rising on a point of order. Order, please. We now have two points of order. I believe the hon. member for Sainte-Marie has priority since he rose first.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, here is my point of order. In his reply to a question put to him by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the Prime Minister stated that he had given no instructions to the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts and, if I am not mistaken, when he replied to the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), the Prime Minister said that it was not within the committee's terms of reference to scrutinize criminal or legal files in order to study matters deferred to it. I believe those were the very words used by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ah!


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rose on a point of order and it is my right to express my opinion. By giving instructions in advance in this House to a committee which is in session, the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could we have more decorum from those rude and cowardly members who are unable to observe order in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to indicate his point of order to us as soon as possible.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I refer to citation 288, on page 237 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Procedure, and since I have the English version, I will quote in that language:

Committees are regarded as portions of the House and are governed for the most part in their proceedings by the same rules which prevail in the

November 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry House. Every question is determined in a committee in the same manner as in the House to which it belongs.
This means that every matter is decided by the committee and not by the House or by the Prime Minister. I think that the Prime Minister, by expressing his opinion in the House on the way the committee should conduct its business, is breaching the privileges of the committees of this House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member from the Creditiste party asked me if it would not be expedient to change the terms of reference of that parliamentary committee, in order to ask it to study another matter. Your Honour nearly decided that this question had already been answered and that it was not necessary to give it an answer today. I should have relied on your instinct. I tried to explain to the hon. member the terms of reference which we had given the committee. I did not comment any further to say that we were to tell it to do something. I merely indicated that those terms of reference existed, that we did not see any reason to change them for the time being, and that we were hoping that they would be construed in the spirit in which we had given them.


Gerald William Baldwin: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member raised the point of order in the first instance. He made his contribution, and we have heard from a number of members on the same point, so I doubt very much if anything will be gained by pursuing the matter. It seems to me that every one is agreed on the principle enunciated originally by the hon. member for Peace River, by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie, by the Prime Minister and by the hon. member for Lotbi-niere, that these questions have to be decided by the committee and not by the House. This being so I think we should return to the question period, especially in view of the fact there are only six minutes left.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a question of privilege. The privileges of this House and the members of this House, and in particular members of Standing Committees, is largely founded on the respect which members pay to the Standing Orders, which establish the independence of committees. On that question of privilege, I know what the Prime 
Minister said and what the terms of reference are. The terms are wide enough to inquire into the operation of the Company of Young Canadians, Mr. Speaker. It is a breach of privilege for the Prime Minister or anybody in this House to attempt to influence what anybody else should do.


Mr. Speaker:: I might say that is not my interpretation of what was said by hon. members. I must suggest that basically we are still all agreed on the point at issue. I would hope that we might return to the question period.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breion-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I first be permitted to express my thanks to all members for their greeting, including the Prime Minister who seems to be glad to see me back and to let bygones be bygones. My original question was not for him but since he has shown such spirit I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Is the federal government spending or planning to spend several million dollars on a motion picture starring Louise Marleau?


Mr. Speaker:: I am afraid that is irrelevant.


STATUTES OF CANADA
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. When will the commission which was appointed several years ago to revise the statutes complete their work, and when is it expected that copies of the revised statutes will be available?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are long since
forgotten.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a more precise date for the hon. member than I can give him now and I hope to have this for him in the not too distant future.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
November 19, 19G9	COMMONS DEBATES	1007
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since his return to Ottawa, has the minister whether a statement could be made on looked into the complaints made by some motions. I do not think the statement should residents of St. John's, Newfoundland, about be made at this time, the searches made by the RCMP aboard
foreign ships which load supplies in the har-	McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I repeat
bour of that city, searches which endanger Question to the minister and ask whether trade at St. John's?	he will make a statement on motions on this
important subject?


AID TO HIGH SCHOOL HOCKEY
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement made in Winnipeg yesterday by Mr. Charles Hay, President of Hockey Canada, to the effect that a program to improve the quality of hockey in Canada would be commenced immediately, with emphasis on high school hockey, can the minister state whether consideration is being given to additional funds for Hockey Canada for this purpose?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the growing rate of unemployment, especially in the slow growth areas, and the minister's responsibility in relation thereto, would the minister make a statement on motions regarding the area development incentive programs presently under way or planned so that the House may involve itself in this very important subject?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that several programs are aimed at reducing unemployment and creating jobs.
For his information, since January 1969, there have been four times as many projects approved by my department as compared with 1968. There are four times as many new jobs, nearly 18,000 a year. I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the question asked by the hon. member was


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from the fact the minister answered the original question. I therefore do not see why the hon. member should be denied the opportunity of asking a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will kindly consult the rules and precedents he will realize that, fortunately or unfortunately, supplementary questions are at the discretion of the Chair. I have indicated before that when we are running short of time we really ought to reduce the number of supplementary questions and go on with other matters.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received any complaints regarding the long delay in the publication of Mental Health Statistics, volumes 1 and 2, which were to have been used as future guidelines but which are now rapidly becoming ancient history? Can the minister give us any idea as to when these publications will appear?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I have not received any complaints.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister look into the matter and see when these volumes will appear. That information is three years old now.




Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his discussions with Mrs. Meir and Mr. Nasser, did he make any direct offer of the good

November 19, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry offices of Canada in solving the great dispute existing between the countries these persons head?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not go with any proposals for peace. I think the fact that we were interested, and that we took the time to go, may make it clear to the countries concerned that we are taking an objective view and, therefore, that we stand ready, if there is any service that we can perform, to perform it.


PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I asked the government House Leader when we might expect terms of reference with respect to the Public Accounts Committee in order that that committee might begin its work. He indicated that he would take the matter under consideration. Could he now indicate to the House when these terms of reference will be introduced?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, when the original question was asked I indicated that I would take the matter up with the House Leaders, and I did.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister assure us that these terms of reference will be brought in promptly, so that this very important committee can begin its important work?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that will be done as soon as I receive a response from the House Leaders, among whom is included the hon. gentleman's colleague, his party's House Leader.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is quite all right. You can go ahead.


TRANSPORT
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the minister responsible for northern development. Does the government look with favour on the offer of Humble Oil to sell to Panarctic Oils Limited informa'ion and analyses gathered on the recent Arctic trip of the tanker Manhattan?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question as asked is hardly in order. The hon. member is inviting the minister to give an expression of opinion, so the question is not in order.


HOUSING
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of Transcan Custom Homes of Kenora, Ontario, having developed a new concept in prefabricated homes, as a result of which homes will be available for little as $8,000, and in view of the fact that production and distribution of these homes hinges on an industrial incentive grant from the federal government, will the minister assure the House that this application from Transcan will receive extremely sympathetic consideration and, if possible, approval, so that lower income families of Canada may experience some relief from their housing difficulties?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, all
applications receive sympathetic consideration from the department.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
[Translation\


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he state whether the creation of a committee on constitutional affairs will be discussed at the federal-provincial conference in December and when he will produce the agenda of the conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this matter will not be discussed at the conference itself because it obviously only concerns the federal parliament. However, as I have mentioned in this House, we hope that the discussions between the leaders of the various parties will allow us to decide the appropriate time for instituting such a committee.
I only mean to say that perhaps, as usual, after the federal-provincial conference parliament may wish to devote one or two days to

November 19, 1969

discussing such matters, and if it is the wish of the house it will be done after the December conference, as was the procedure in the past.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period expired some minutes ago. If there is unanimous consent of the House, perhaps the hon. member for Hamilton West might be allowed to ask a supplementary question.


HOUSING
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I wish to direct another question to the minister who answered the first part of my question. We all know that his department treats all applications with great sympathy, but I wish to know whether his department will approve the application being made by Transcan Custom Homes in order that the housing shortage experienced by low income families may be relieved?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know most of the problems. The application will be processed as soon as possible.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. No doubt he will have noticed that quite a few other hon. members are still anxious to ask questions. Generosity has been shown by hon. members in allowing the question period to go well beyond its allotted time. I think we should go on with the business of the House at this time.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I tried today to have the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion say if he would be prepared to make a statement on motions. This question, Mr. Speaker-and that is why I am now raising my point of order-was prompted by the fact the minister released a statement to the press at three o'clock this afternoon. I think the House is entitled to have the information first, so that appropriate comment may be made here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In view of the apparent interest in
Ways and Means
the question period, could I ask for unanimous consent to extend the period?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt whether there would be unanimous consent. There might be opposition from the Chair. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Excise Tax Act to provide
(1)	that a tax of five per cent be imposed on each amount paid or payable in Canada for transportation of a person by air where such transportation
(a)	begins at a point in Canada and ends at a point in the taxation area,
(b)	begins at a point in the taxation area outside Canada and ends at a point in Canada, or
(c)	begins at a point in the taxation area outside Canada and ends at a point in the taxation area outside Canada,
(2)	that a tax of five dollars, or such lesser amount not less than two dollars, as the Governor in Council may determine, be imposed on each amount paid or payable in Canada for transportation of a person by air where such transportation begins at a point in the taxation area and ends at a point outside the taxation area,
(3)	that the expression "taxation area" shall mean Canada, the United States (except Hawaii) and the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and
(4)	that the legislation based on this resolution shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak just as Your Honour put the motion. I was hoping to hear the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) make a statement of explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister would be out of order if he attempted to do so. There is no provision for that to be done under Standing Order 60(10).

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections EXCISE TAX ACT


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: that Bill C-155, to amend the Excise Tax Act be read the first time and ordered to be printed.


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


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be empowered to study the following matters and to report to the House such proposals as the Committee may deem advisable:
1.	The Canada Elections Act, exclusive of Sections 62 and 63;
2.	The Report of the Representation Commissioner on Methods of Registration of Electors and Absentee Voting, 1968, made pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Commissioner Act;
And that the evidence adduced by the Committee in its study of the aforementioned items during the First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Parliament be referred to the Committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to go into the substance of the motion since it is moved really for a procedural purpose, that of empowering the committee to study and consider all those aspects of the Canada Elections Act except the two sections which are related to the question of election expenses. As the House will recall, a previous motion in the last session empowered the committee to consider questions under the Canada Elections Act. On that basis the committee carried out hearings. The purpose of this motion really is to continue that mandate.
Some of the questions of greater significance will involve the voting age and absentee voting. At the same time, the committee will have the opportunity of hearing the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer on a number of changes in detail which he is proposing to the Elections Act. To review the timetable, it is the intention to refer the question of election expenses to a special committee of the House to be established when this study is completed. This particular study is important, and comes first, principally because of the nature of the changes contemplated and the time which will be needed by the Chief Electoral Officer to prepare the electoral system for an election in 1972 or 1973. Extensive changes in the electorate and in election procedures may be required,

involving the electoral officer and creating a time problem; changes in the regulations would be called for, and it would be necessary to ensure that all returning officers had been advised of the new procedure. It is, therefore, important in our minds that, if possible, the committee should arrive at a determination of its deliberations before Christmas, or, at any rate, as soon as possible, in order that the amending bill founded on the committee's study can receive legislative sanction by the end of this session.
I might refer to the position of the Representation Commissioner which, under the terms of the legislation establishing his office, should be considered during the current session, and, indeed, to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in addition to a number of other electoral matters which are of interest. It would be the intention of the government after the first two studies, the current one and the study of election expenses, have been completed, to undertake an examination of these further questions to determine whether changes in legislation are necessary.
I shall conclude by saying that it is hoped the committee can proceed with all deliberate speed in its work and that in due course, later this session, we shall be able to look at a draft bill founded on its recommendations.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: This is an important matter, dealing, as it does, with electoral machinery-a vital issue in any functioning democracy. Certainly, this motion cannot be considered as in any way premature. There was a fairly well established tradition in this House that after general elections the Elections Act would be sent to the committee for review. Often this procedure allowed for the remedy of errors, omissions or inadequacies which had become apparent during the exercise of the franchise by the voters of Canada.
Not since the election of 1962 has there been a complete overhaul of the Act. The elections of 1962, 1963, 1965 and 1968 were conducted on essentially the unrevised Act of 1961. Those who have been in this chamber for some time will recall how often I and other hon. members have urged that the committee be set to work. I noted from the comments of the minister that there now seems to be a great hurry; we must function, deliberate and recommend before Christmas. But there was no hurry in the past. I had the honour of chairing the committee which, in a sense, gave birth to the present act and I have
November 19, 1969

some idea of the immensity of the work involved and the number of sittings required for a careful study to be made of this important matter.
Though I welcome the motion before us as a green light for action toward an updating of our electoral machinery, I cannot say "aye, aye" and figuratively salute the motion as it goes through. Things have happened in recent weeks and months which must be considered very carefully as the House moves toward action by one of its committees in connection with this serious matter. For this motion, and the circumstances preceding it, reveal the stark inadequacy of the committee system and the extent to which the denigration of standing committees has been fostered and furthered by the government. More than once hon. members have risen to protest about the contemptuous disregard which the government has accorded to the considered views of the committees of this House.
Hon. members may recall the lack of respect accorded the External Affairs and National Defence Committee's recommendation on this country's defence role in NATO and Europe generally. Consider the affront which the executive handed the committee on Transport and Communications! That group made a serious on-the-spot study of transportation problems in the Atlantic region. They heard many well-informed and concerned groups and citizens. Some of them were from the Province of Prince Edward Island and therefore they were particularly well-informed, possibly because they faced particularly acute problems. Among the major transportation projects studied was the Northumberland causeway, but the committee did not even have time to return to Ottawa to prepare its report before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the repudiation of the government's commitment to build that much needed and much promised crossing. To ignore is bad enough. In this instance, the government has pre-empted the committee's area of study and possible recommendations.
In the weeks just prior to the opening of this session, and while the committee was studying the Elections Act under reference from the first session, the Prime Minister was quoted as declaring that the government was sympathetic to the idea of lowering the voting age in federal elections.
The Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras) was reported as making a similar intimation. Later on the Liberal-Labour member from
Privileges and Elections Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), who apparently attends the Liberal caucus rather than the Liberal-Labour one, went a little further and gave an interesting blessing to the Prime Minister and the minister, of which latter hon. gentleman's utterance he said: "It's a good thing he made that announcement. It has already been decided."
In the Speech from the Throne, among all the forecasts of white papers, studies and reports, appeared this item, indicating that on one matter at least, the government had made up its mind:
The government believes that the time has come to extend the franchise in federal elections and it will therefore recommend to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the House of Commons that the voting age be lowered to eighteen.
Hon. members will note the phrase "the government will recommend". Now, when the present Act was passed, following the Speech from the Throne of 1959, the government of that day adopted a less domineering attitude. I quote from the Speech of 1959:
It will be proposed that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections review the Elections Act in preparation for subsequent legislation.
The committee was not told, then, that the government would recommend what it ought to do. Mr. Speaker, if there is to be any value attached to the committee system we must be clear about its functions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: A committee is an emanation of this House and not a creature of the executive. It is for a committee, within its terms of reference, to recommend, and it is up to the House to adopt or reject committee reports and recommendations. Unless this part of the exercise is made meaningful we talk in vain about revitalizing the committee system of this parliament. Here, we have a case in which the government has clearly reached down into the area of the committee's reference and has declared its policy before the committee goes to work. In these circumstances, how realistic can the committee be as it faces its deliberations on the question of the voting age and the extension of the franchise? What importance could be attached to its studies following, as they would, a declaration of government policy in that very field?
I am confident I could predict with accuracy that the committee and the House are in favour of the franchise at the age of 18, and that the committee would probably recommend that candidates, too, should be eligible

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections at the age of 18. Certainly, some of us would, but what if the committee should recommend 17 years of age, or 19, or 21? What if the House adopts a report containing such a recommendation, one, in other words, that would be contrary to that placed by the government in the throne speech? Would this constitute non-confidence in the government? Perhaps this is an academic question, but I say it is a fundamental one. The relationship of the executive to the legislative branch always is fundamental in any system of representative and responsible government.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We hear today much discussion about this country moving closer and closer to the presidential system. Papers are being written on the subject by some eminent scholars. There is a good deal of discussion of the question in the media, and there are developments worth reflecting upon in this very important field.
The presidential system as practised in our great neighbouring democracy has much to commend it; but the evolution that we see in this country lacks one essential ingredient, namely the recognition that the legislative arm-in the United States they call it Congress; here, we call it Parliament-must be strong, too. In this country we see a growing strength in the executive and a continuing decline in the strength of the legislative arm, and this is the danger. This is why this particular motion today, focusing as it does on this dangerous development, is worthy of the consideration and reflection of all members of this House.
This tendency is all the more serious in a country like Canada where the executive, unlike that in the United States, is not directly elected, and the legislature or a part of it is the one body that is representative of the sovereign people. So that this diminution is a matter that we ignore at our peril.
The kind of presidential systems seen in certain countries of Latin America and on other continents is not one to be cherished by any lover of democracy or any champion of popular will. Developments in this country are, I fear, far more akin to these than to any emulation of the presidential-congressional system of the United States under which freedom has survived for many generations.
If there is one aspect of the business of Parliament that should be free from partisan bitterness, it is the examination of the organs and institutions of electoral choice. We should approach the machinery of elections in the

very best possible atmosphere, and this important committee, above all others, should not start its deliberations under any shadow of inhibition or executive diktat.
In session after session, members from all parts of the House have advanced private member's bills on lowering the voting age. How much more appropriate and decent it would have been to adopt one of these bills. Instead, they were with painful consistency and dogged regularity talked out by government-supporting members.
In the last session a group of these bills were referred to the committee as part of its terms of reference. In this session, in light of these terms of reference, apparently even this courtesy has been denied. These bills rest at this moment, lonely and unattended, on the Order Paper as the committee is projected into its study of the subject matter with which they deal.
The motion before us does not reflect any nice regard for the place and responsibility of the committee and of the House. It does not even show consistency for the actualities of the situation. In the face of a declared statement of government policy, again I ask how meaningful can the committee's study of the voting age really be? One might have thought that the government would find some way to deal with this situation a little more honourably. It might have included this directive in these terms of reference. Or it might have excluded section 14 (a), which deals with the voting age, as it excluded sections 62 and 63. The government might have told the committee not to bother with this section since a decision had already been made from on high, that the committee could fiddle around with other items if they wished. But the government did not do that.
One question above all concerns me, and it is this. I wonder why, after years of lassitude on the matter, there should now be such a rush to support extension of the voting age to 18. Ministers were falling over themselves during the summer to disclose what was going to happen. Private members were indicating that they knew even more than the ministers; they knew this decision had already been made in that inner Sanhedrin of power, the Liberal caucus.
Session after session and year after year members on both sides of the House have made this suggestion and introduced bills to give effect to it. But no support was forthcoming from the government. Is there some
November 19, 1969

reason why that which was so casually disregarded the summer before became a hot issue this last summer? I have searched and researched, studied and inquired, but the only answer I got was from my study of the Canadian Institute of Public Opinion poll. Last Saturday's Montreal Star published a poll that had been conducted recently. The heading is "Disenchantment with Trudeau" and this question was asked: "Would you say that your opinion of the Prime Minister has gone up or gone down in the last six months?" Canadians seem to indicate that there is a downward movement, and the greatest decline is shown among the younger group.
Does it mean that because there is disillusionment among the youth with their one time hero, their "swinger of yesteryear", and with the Company of Young Canadians likely to go into the limbo of disregard and discard, compensation is offered in the form of this sudden interest in the extension of the vote to the 18 year olds? I cannot be sure. I do not attend the Liberal caucus and I do not know the inside story, but I think this question would bear reflecting upon.
Some of us have been very concerned with what has been happening to the committee structure of this Parliament, about which much talk was heard some months ago. We were told that this restructuring was going to make the House more efficient, more democratic, more relevant, more meaningful. But how much reality lies behind all these proclamations? The bugles have sounded, but how much advance has taken place? I fear very little.
We apparently have a government that believes that matter is inconsequential, provided the message is widely disseminated. Dissemination of messages is not sufficiently proficient at the moment they feel, though we hear it is going to become more highly organized at some time in the future. The illusion of activity is more valuable and easier of attainment than the reality of action. So, in this Parliament today we dwell on a mound of white papers buffeted by a hurricane of press releases.
Again, I say that this is one area from which the hands of the executive should be removed as much as possible. If there is one officer in the service of Canada who should be removed from the intrusion of the government, it is the Chief Electoral Officer, who is the servant of Parliament, not of the government. He is the man most involved in what will take place in this committee, at least as
Privileges and Elections far as this type of reference is concerned. He is the man whose work is most vitally affected by the committee's deliberations.
There are many things that one might say about the performance of the committee last year, and I do not intend to involve myself in this except to make one point. I was very much concerned that the committee traversed the country at great expense to see the electoral officers of the provinces. I am not an economist, but it would strike me a more rational procedure to invite the electoral officers to Ottawa. When members of the New Democratic Party and my party attempted to halt the pilgrimage, we almost won out, but lost by a nose. Surely, the electoral officers 'would have come. I do not take the view however that the committee must necessarily be Ottawa-bound, but it should not leave Ottawa and traverse the country at great expense to the Canadian taxpayer unless these deliberations are open to representations from the Canadian public. We want no sashaying around the country for closed sessions with one or two officials.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The electors, and not just those who operate the electoral machinery, should be heard. They are often the ones who have personal knowledge of the inadequacies because often they have been disfranchised as a result of flaws in the Act or may know of others who have been similarly denied. Possibly the public might be able to tell the bureaucrat something he did not already know.
We have, basically, a splendid election Act. Indeed, in many ways it is an exemplary one. We are fortunate, too, in the quality and competence of the men who have administered it. Jules Castonguay, Nelson Castonguay and J. M. Hamel have a deservedly high repute. I think anyone involved in any way would attest to the impartiality and efficiency with which the present Chief Electoral Officer and his predecessor discharged their important duties. Heaven knows, they are difficult duties.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) mentioned, there are places where improvements can be made. We won't go into them here of course, but there is surely ground for improvement in the efforts we make to extend ever wider the opportunities for Canadians to cast their ballots.

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections
There was a very painful experience in 1965, during that hasty and unnecessary election, when thousands of students were disfranchised. Canadians abroad, not just public servants, but many Canadians in this mobile age are alike quite often voteless. The separation of the military from the civilian is an unfortunate situation. The problem of the Canadian abroad, civil servant, external affairs officer, private citizen and military servant, could all be covered by a system of absentee voting. I am very pleased there is special reference to this matter in our term of reference.
We should move forward to a scrutiny of our elections Act. I cannot too strongly urge the House to look carefully at, and think seriously about, what governmental arrogance is doing to committees, the creatures of this House and, indeed, to this House itself. I think the work of this committee, and the place and function of committees generally, are being vitiated and circumscribed by a government led by a man who told the House, when only a part of the cabinet instead of its head, "We are your masters". This is where the problem arises. It is just another illustration of the difficulties through which the representative institution is passing in this particular age.
Since this motion calls for a House decision, I ask hon. members to reflect, consider and weigh the implications of what can happen when Parliament, the essential instrument and institution of representative government, is down-graded and its committees diminished in their effectiveness and restricted in their usefulness. What has been done and predeclared by the government just to this particular committee?
What happens to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections may be visited upon another committee tomorrow. A vital, properly functioning committee system could strengthen Parliament and make it a more relevant, meaningful institution. Further weakening of the system will weaken Parliament. More tokenism will mean less freedom. At a time when this historic institution is assailed sufficiently from without, let none of us be a party to undermining it from within.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, it cannot be stated too often that a piece of legislation such as the Canada Elections Act is not the property of the government or any one party, but belongs to Parliament and the people as a whole. I,

therefore, welcome the very strong statement that has just been made by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in support of the proposition that this committee should continue the traditions of the past and approach its problem free of partisan conflict.
I would like to suggest, Mr. Speaker, as one step that might be taken to symbolize the acceptance of that proposition that, like the public accounts committee, this is a committee of which it might be appropriate to name an opposition member as the chairman. I have looked over the list and there are a number Who could qualify among those of the opposition parties. I hope it will not be the kiss of death for him if I suggest that the preceding speaker, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), who has had experience in the past with such a committee, would make an excellent chairman of this committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Why not a nonpartisan person?


Stanley Howard Knowles: heard a remark suggesting that it should be a non-partisan person. I think the hon. member for Hillsborough has demonstrated that when there is at stake a matter of party principle he can fight like any of us, but when it is a matter above party he demonstrates that he can fill that role very ably.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: should also like to support the contention made by the member for Hillsborough that the rights of committees deserve all the respect that we can muster. This should apply in a particular way with respect to this committee on the Canada Elections Act.
It so happens that my colleagues and I support the proposition that the voting age should be lowered to 18. My former colleague, the present premier of Manitoba, introduced a bill to that effect several times. My colleague the member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nys-trom) has a bill to that effect on the order paper on the present time. I can think of other former colleagues who have done likewise. We have taken this position for a long time. It was my leader who brought in the voting age of 18 in provincial elections in the province of Saskatchewan. We are in support of it.
November 19, 1969

But I quite agree with the position taken by the previous speaker that it is hardly in keeping with the important role of committees for the government to announce it is recommending any course of this sort. It is hardly appropriate for the government to tell the country, as has been done, that the decision has already been made. I am glad to know the government has a position. I think it would have been more appropriate for that position either to have been brought out in a government bill amending the Canada Elections Act or to have been put forward by those who speak for the government on the committee.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
It is also a fact that we very strongly support the idea of legislation to permit absentee voting. Again, I wish to thank the President of the Privy Council for the favourable response he made to a question of mine during the late show a week or so ago when I raised this matter particularly on behalf of disabled persons. I think that is a better way to do it. The matter has been raised in Parliament, suggestions have been made about it and the minister has said he favours the idea. But it has been left to the committee to decide whether or not there will be such a move. I hope there will be, and that it will provide not only for disabled persons on whose behalf I spoke some nights ago but also on behalf of other people who because of absenteeism in other parts of Canada or outside Canada are unable at the present time to cast their votes in federal elections.
As I say, on these two matters which apparently will come before the committee we feel very strongly. We support the proposed motion in both cases but we think it is terribly important that the operations of the committee not be interfered with by means of directives from on high. As the hon. member has said, how Parliament operates in respect of its freedom from control by the executive is very important. We feel there are a number of instances in which this has not been recognized by the present government.
The third thing I wish to say has to do with the timing of this whole matter. I do not blame my friend from Hillsborough for having something to say about how slow the government hats been acting up until this point. This is in contrast with its desire now suddenly to move fast. This happens so often. The government drags its feet and then a point comes when it wants something done and we are expected to speed up. In this
Privileges and Elections particular case it is seven, eight or nine months since the President of the Privy Council made a statement to the House on the whole question of amending the Canada Elections Act.
The President of the Privy Council set out a time-table and pointed out that unless we move fast we will find ourselves up against the next election without being ready for it in terms of these legislative changes. Yet, although that plea was made many months ago, precious little has been done up until this point. I think it is in order to criticize the government for this delay. I do not think, however, this gives us the right to add to the delay. I believe we should do all we can to have this motion approved, to have it referred to the committee, and to assist the committee in getting this job done. Indeed, it must report back to parliament as soon as possible so that we can get on with one other matter in particular, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I realize that when one sets out to amend the Canada Elections Act one becomes involved in much detail. If one wants to spend time on the details, then time ad infinitum can be expended. I think it can also be said that in the main the routine technical improvements which need to be made have been drafted by previous committees and by the Chief Electoral Officer. I believe that with some sense of urgency this can be handled rather quickly. So far, there would seem to be only the two issues of policy facing us now, namely the voting age and the absentee ballot. There should be plenty of time to dispose of these issues and cope with them in a satisfactory way. For example, with regard to absentee voting there is the question of whether it is to be done by an absentee ballot, a vote by proxy, or what have you.
I believe that if the members of the committee are seized of the importance of getting this job done with reasonable expedition, and if they have the excellent guidance of the chairman I have nominated, there is no reason this job could not be done before the House rises for the Christmas recess. I urge as strongly as I can that a timetable of this kind be adopted. I do so because I think this question of what we do about election expenses is more important than any of the things we have talked about thus far today with regard to the elections Act. It is important how old people are when they vote. The details of how they mark their ballots and who places the ballot in the box are also important. All

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections these things are important. But one of the dangers which faces democracy particularly in this age of modern methods of advertising and the huge sums of money spent on advertising is that men's minds can be bought. In a very real and subtle way, elections can be bought and unelss we do something about election expenses real damage can be done to democracy as we know it in this country.
It is now several years since the the government of Mr. Pearson set up a committee on election expenses which made a very important and voluminous report. This report went into this whole question, dealt with the issues at stake and made some clear an,d precise recommendations. Year after year, Mr. Pearson promised us that once this report had been made it would be referred and that something would be done. Time went by and nothing was done. When the President of the Privy Council raised this issue during the last session, I suggested that he divide it into the two questions of general routine matters on the one hand and election expenses on the other. He graciously accepted that suggestion and has confirmed today that the proposal is that the terms of reference now before us are such that all the other matters would be dealt with by this committee and that a special committee would be set up to deal with the question of election expenses. I still support that proposal. But, unless we get the first job done, unless we get the routine things out of the way, Parliament will not get at the other job and there is a real danger it might not be completed in time for the next election.
This is the reason I urge that the committee deal with these present problems with expedition and that it get these matters out of the way so that it can get at this question of election expenses. I address this challenge, if you like, not just to the members of the committee but to the government itself. I listened very carefully to the words of the President of the Privy Council. I was not quite sure what he meant. If he wishes to interrupt and correct me he is free to do so. I see he is wide awake now. He talked about legislation by the end of the session. I take it he meant by next June. I had the impression he was referring only to legislation that would be based on this present motion. I think the government should state whether its goal is to have legislation in respect of the elections Act generally and legislation with regard to election expenses both passed through parliament by the end of this session, let us say by the summer of 1970.

If we are to go into the next election, whether in 1972 or 1973, with a new approach to the question of election expenses, we must know about this not just the day before dissolution but months, perhaps a year or two, in advance. This involves the whole question of how much people are to be permitted to contribute to various parties, the whole question of disclosure, income tax deductibility, the whole question of how much out of public funds should be spent in terms of broadcasting, printing and mailing and so on, so that there may be equality among the parties.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If we are going to go in for that kind of a regime-and I think we have to if we are going to keep democracy democratic-then it is no use coming out with that kind of legislation just a month or two before the dissolution of the present parliament. The goal for a complete package of both routine matters and legislation on elections expenses should be no later than next summer. Therefore, I call upon the committee to get these routine jobs done as expeditiously as they can. I call upon the government to bring in the other motion to deal with election expenses not later than on our return after the Christmas recess, and that it set a goal for that as well, so that the total job can be done.
As people who are involved in elections, we are all very conscious of all the various details. We are particularly conscious of the people who lose their vote on election day because the lists were not made up properly, because they were ill, away, or for a dozen other reasons. Our machinery should be amended to take care of all these grievances. But over and above all of that is the big question of controlling elections expenses in such a way that elections cannot be bought. Our elections should be run in such a manner that they really reflect the democratic views of a democratic society.
Therefore, we are happy to support this motion to give the committee this important job, but we call for the other important job to be done also with the greatest possible expedition.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with the remarks of the previous speaker. Naturally, we cannot but approve the government's decision to review the Canada Election Act. We all know that there
November 19, 1969

are inadequacies in that act, so serious that they affect the very principle of democracy.
I pointed out in the last session, that the provisions on the military vote were more or less sound especially as the results are made known only a week after election day. To my mind, this leads to fairly serious consequences at times, since some riding change allegiance precisely because of that. Surely, that is something that must be taken care of.
There are, obviously, a whole series of solutions which the committee will study. We hope that the recommendations which are made will fill in the gaps and improve the Canada Election Act.
With regard to lowering the voting age to 18 years, we are not opposed to it in principle; still, every aspect of this new ruling should be studied.
Some way should also be found to enable every Canadian to cast his vote at election time. Perhaps the possibility of making voting compulsory, in some way or other, could be considered.
The most important aspect of all this, however, is the one on which the previous speaker dwelt, namely, the two provisions that are excluded, according to the resolution now under study.
Even if the Canada Election Act were to be a masterpiece of perfection in all its other sections, the fact remains that we will destroy their value if we do not improve the wording of sections 62 and 63, because we know full well that through election funds we can unfortunately act against democracy. It is unfair that the election of representatives of the people should depend exclusively on publicity-and to speak of publicity is to speak of expenditures-not only for the candidate who can suffer from a lack of publicity, because of a shortage of funds, but especially for the people whose judgment can be misled at election time by slanted publicity.
There is no need to give too many examples on this subject. We all know that it is very easy to get round section 62 and 63. One only has to examine the report on election expenses which has to be submitted by all candidates, to realize that this is a monumental farce. Several thousands of dollars are sometimes spent in some ridings, while only a few are declared.
If, as I said before, harm is being done to democracy, it is certainly when elections are
Privileges and Elections won with election funds and misleading publicity.
This is easy to explain since with advertising we buy products for which we have absolutely no need. It happened again in 1968. Through advertising, a product was forced upon us. This is psychological: under the pressure of advertising, people finally give in.
And we end up with the following results: too often, the leaders are not necessarily those the people would like to have.
Therefore, the process of democracy is distorted by the action of election funds and election expenses. We should delay no longer in finding solutions to this problem, otherwise we will keep on making a laughing-stock of ourselves. As far as I am concerned, I have figured out certain very obvious expenses and if I compare them with those which have been declared, I cannot help laughing. Should we keep on showing the people that this is a mere sham? Let us be sensible, let us think about it carefully and take it upon ourselves to change such situations which I would term as odious.
Personally I would not want to have to admit that I have been elected thanks to an election fund. In fact, I can honestly say in this House that the amount of $1,344.50 which I have declared in my report on election expenses, is quite accurate. I have not spent an extra cent in the Champlain riding and I challenge anyone to prove the contrary. Thus, people who honestly try to make their opinions known to the people, in accordance to their means, have to struggle against an infernal machine driven by almighty financial interests.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
There is a problem much more serious than to know if we must have the young vote at 18, 19, 20 or 21. Indeed, we must find means to discover what representatives the people want and this, without undue pressures, without any false publicity, without anything but sheer honesty.
On this subject, the Ralliement creditiste has always showed, for a few years, that it was possible to wage an election without money or with a minimum of money.
It would thus be advisable to start immediately to study the advisability of limiting election expenses and to think immediately of determining the means of giving everybody an equal opportunity to express his opinion and this, in an adult and equitable way.

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections
It is possible to achieve this result. For instance, we are ail required to contribute to the financing of the C.B.C. Why should we not use the services of this corporation when it is a question of an election or simply of politics so as to avoid useless expenses?
I would be very glad, for instance, if the C.B.C. put every week a free period at the disposal of all the parties, in an equitable way, in relation to the four parties represented in the House of Commons. During a quarter of an hour a week, for instance, the political parties could express their opinion on what is happening in the House of Commons, on the bills, etc., in order to inform the public and to keep in touch with it in a certain way. It could be done without any expenses involved, on either side.
The C.B.C. which is so often criticized should devote one hour every week to each and every political party. During an election campaign, extra broadcasting time could be allotted to all, thus doing away with those times when he who had the money won the day. Can you dream of anything more ridiculous? Should we not rely on the ability and honesty of the individual, when we are about to elect a member of parliament, rather than entrusting it to the electoral fund?
In my opinion, the real problem of the Elections Act lies with sections 62 and 63 for, even if we do change all the others, the problem shall not be solved for that matter.
It could happen, Mr. Speaker, that both go together. I do not quarrel with that. We know that citizens in some areas of this country are able to recognize the merits of certain political opinions, whenever they are given the opportunity to be told about them. If the various political parties had a better opportunity to express their political ideas, in a fair way, the government would be a little more balanced.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, six years ago, when I was first elected to this place, I served on a committee which was charged with the responsibility of reviewing the elections Act. That committee reported and made a number of recommendations. Unfortunately, because of the way in which the business of the House was conducted at that time and with the log jam on the Order Paper, the difficulties with the procedures were such that its report could not get priority translation into legislation.

I am sure the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), to whom I listened with some interest some time ago, would be the first to admit that today we have a reasonable prospect of this legislation being enacted in the near future, thanks to the improvement in House procedures and rules, thanks to the new life which has been given to committees, and thanks to the active work of the committee in the last session of this Parliament under the distinguished chairmanship of the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme).
I had the privilege during the month of September and early October of serving with the committee when its members made a trip to speak to some of the electoral officers and to do some first-hand investigation of the problems, dealing particularly with the matter of lowering the voting age and of absentee ballots. I am sure that the hon. member for Hillsborough, who seems to feel such a trip was not productive, would at the very least concede we had most informative sessions with the electoral officer in the province of Quebec and, with his assistance, assessed the documents and information given to us. There was a full and frank exchange in a closed session that would have been almost impossible if the hearings had taken place in Ottawa, as some hon. members seem to think should have been the case. I am sure the hon. member for Hillsborough will agree with me that members of the committee were most conscientious in attending, with one or two exceptions. Certainly, the information and experience gained will be most valuable to the committee in bringing forward its recommendations.
o (5.10 p.m.)
There is one small point, Mr. Speaker, however, which I do not believe has received attention to any degree and which I would ask the committee to consider. During an election a candidate has the right to name an agent who may go into every polling booth to act as a scrutineer. This is provided for very conscientiously in the Act which spells out the form of the oath, the candidate's admission record to be given to every such agent, and so on. However, I have had the experience, having requested that such agent be placed in the returning officer's premises on election day-the most important single place in that riding on that day-of being told by Mr. Castonguay that the Election Act did not provide for the agent of a candidate to be
November 19, 1969

present in the office of the returning officer, although an agent could be present in the office of each deputy returning officer in the constituency. I hope the committee will recommend some modification to the Act to rectify this omission. There can be no possible objection to it.
When I was with the committee I asked the returning officers of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec whether they could see any reason why a candidate should not have the privilege of having an agent in their offices as well as those of the deputy returning officers. They assured me they could see no objection to this. I hope that when the report of this committee comes to the House such a provision will be recommended.
I know there is a great deal of anxiety and concern felt by all members of the House that this matter should receive prompt attention. As hon. members on the other side have indicated, a substantial period of time has passed since this act was amended. It is hoped that those sections of the Act referred to in the resolution will be dealt with now, and the sections dealing with electoral expenses will be dealt with later. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that as indicated by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) this matter will be referred to the committee for immediate attention.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say two or three words to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) who, in a most outstanding manner, has placed before the House the objections of most members to a principle which is much broader than the mere reference of the Canada Elections Act to the committee. The impression I received from his remarks was that there is danger of the committee system becoming nothing better than a joke. We hear a great deal about the downgrading of Parliament and the downgrading of the committee system. I have heard members of the various parties indicate that this is not too serious a matter. But I say right here and now, and I think this is a fairly non-partisan point, that out of the total of 264 members, at the moment there are only 25 members present. Indeed, at one point this afternoon there were only 16. This at a time when we are considering one of the most fundamental rights of the people, the right to vote. Surely, this is an example of the way Parliament has been downgraded.
Privileges and Elections
There is absolutely no enthusiasm in this House, Mr. Speaker. If someone were to stand up and state that we were about to spend a billion dollars to encourage the development of the English language in St. Pierre, no one would get excited about it. The legislation would go through in a couple of hours and that would be the end of it. There is a complete lack of enthusiasm for the committee system. I get fed up to the gills with hearing about this committee system day after day. We just do not have one, Mr. Speaker. Last year I sat for weeks and weeks on the fisheries committee discussing the seal fishery. We interviewed many eminent people in the field of animal culture, the humane societies and people from all across Canada. We made a unanimous report to the House of Commons but the House, just weeks later, acted without any reference at all to that report. For goodness sake, Mr. Speaker, let us tell the people of Canada that the committee system is a farce.
When I came here last year I had already heard of participatory democracy and how there were going to be great changes in the rules. The hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald), is it-rosebud or rose something-told us, especially the backbenchers, "Don't worry, we are going to bring in rule changes to give you a much more important function in the House; you will no longer be frustrated because under the committee system you will have a chance to voice your opinions and give direction to the legislative process." That was what we heard and what we told the Canadian people.
Today we are being asked, as the representative body of the Canadian nation, to refer the Canada Elections Act to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. Mr. Speaker, that is false. The government has stated in the Speech from the Throne that the time has come to extend the franchise in federal elections and that it will, therefore, recommend to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the House of Commons that the voting age be lowered to 18. But, Mr. Speaker, note that the government did not say it would make this recommendation to Parliament. Now, I do not come from the most democratic part of Canada, but in my province the Speech from the Throne refers matters to the legislature, the body elected to represent the people. We know that, according to the Speech from the Throne, the government intends to recommend to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections that the voting age be lowered to 18.

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections [DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The government did not tell the House that there would be revisions to the Canada Elections Act, nor that the voting age would be lowered. We did not even know that the government intended to refer the matter of changing the elections act to the committee or that the committee was to deal with the reduction of the voting age. All we heard was that the reduction of the voting age to 18 was to be studied. How much more discreet can the government be, Mr. Speaker? In those circumstances, how is it possible for the Committee on Privileges and Elections to study the Canada Elections Act and report to Parliament? I submit that the principle under which this committee is to work is a farce. The committee cannot function effectively. Can anyone imagine the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), if he were on the committee, saying, "No, no; I do not think we will go along with the government's recommendation. The voting age should be 19 years." Can you imagine the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) saying, "I disagree. The voting age should be 20 years."
All this is a farce, because a decision has already been made and someone obviously is trying to play the role of God around here. No doubt if the Prime Minister were here he would blush. Perhaps his parliamentary assistant is blushing a little.
Since other hon. members wish to speak in this debate, I will limit my remarks. I say, Mr. Speaker, that our House of Commons committees, as they are now, are not useful instruments. Take, for example, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, or on Fisheries and Forestry, or on Transport and Communications. On many occasions we have seen how those committees have failed to function as useful instruments. Approximately $25,000 or $30,000 was spent on ferrying members of the transport committee to and fro across Canada. They talked about transportation, but when they came back they found that some of the matters they had been talking about were fait accompli. What kind of nonsense was that?
It is our duty to tell the Canadian people that the parliamentary committee system really is a farce. I remember attending a committee meeting one day at which we spent five hours deciding the wording of a resolution. Finally, being thoroughly fed up, I said, "Gentlemen this is nonsense; you are wasting
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
time." They thought me a pretty awful fellow because I left. We finally discovered that the question had already been decided in a manner completely opposite to the unanimous recommendation of the committee. Many of those committee members are not here but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that some of the members came to me and said, "We have made a mistake. We recommended something to the government but the government refused to go along with us. We are upset and, at the first chance we have, we will place our views on record." As far as I am concerned, and I speak as a representative of the people of Canada, we have a responsibility to tell our people that our committee system has failed.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I wish to bring out three or four points. One of those has been touched on by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie).
May I begin by saying that if there is one matter that is the business of everybody in Canada, that is the matter of how we conduct elections. It is the responsibility of parliament to see that our people have the maximum opportunities for casting ballots in an election.
Parliament only revises our election machinery in a major way once in every ten or twelve years. No one here will disagree, I think, that this is a big job and that when we undertake it, the members of the committee and of the House of Commons, should pay the maximum attention to it. This question ought to be dealt with in a non-partisan way. If there is one matter that needs to be dealt with in a non-partisan way by any committee, it is the matter of election reform.
The hon. member for Hillsborough spoke about lowering the voting age to 18 years, and I wish to say something about that. On October 3, 1969, I addressed a letter to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and sent copies of it to all committee members, to the Prime Minister, to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing (Mr. Andras) and to the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). In the letter I pointed out that there are numerous private bills dealing with the matter of lowering the voting age to 18 years and that parliament has referred a number of matters to the standing committee. I said that in light of remarks made by the Prime Minister and the Minister without Portfolio, it was passing strange that those remarks should be
November 19, 1969

followed by this statement which was made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I quote:
It's a good thing he made that announcement. It's already been decided.
I then said in my letter that if the matter has already been decided, why should we waste the taxpayers' money and the time of committee members in dealing with it. I do not for one moment question the prerogative of the government to make decisions on any matter. Having once made its decision, it seems to me, the proper way for the government to act would be to remove that part already decided upon from the terms of reference of the committee. The committee should not be asked to deal with the matter.
In that context, sir, I agree that the committee was badly treated. The chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), properly brought my letter to the attention of the committee when we were meeting under terms of reference which had been established during the previous session. We were assured that the statement of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River was not in accordance with the facts, and that the matter had not been decided. Actually, there were assurances that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River did not know what he was talking about. Then, within a matter of days, we were able to read the Speech from the Throne. Included in it was the subject matter we are now discussing. I submit that fact indicates some members of the committee did not know what they were talking about, either. That is all water under the bridge, now, Mr. Speaker. But it is not too late for us to make sure that this committee functions in the manner our committees ought to function. In reviewing something as vital as electoral reform, it is not too late for this committee to act in a non-partisan fashion.
I note that in the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) nothing was said about the committee members travelling from place to place. I agree that if the committee's travelling will mean unnecessary expense, then it should not travel. My colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), made a good point when referring to a committee's trip to the Maritimes. There was terrible waste and little point in half-filling an expensive aircraft with 24 members and then flying them about the country so that in four days they could meet 21362-65
Privileges and Elections three people. Let me not be misunderstood on this point. I agree with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis), that the meetings with the chief electoral officers of those three provinces were valuable. I agree that those meetings had to be held in camera. While travelling about the country, I think the committee should also have heard briefs and submissions from members of the public on the subject of electoral reform, because that subject is the business of everyone.
Committee members are as anxious as any to avoid unnecessary jaunts which waste time and money. Nevertheless, there are sometimes good reasons for having the committee move from place to place. For example, there is the whole matter of the proxy voting system about which I know little. It has been said that the committee would be wise to meet with the committee of the Ontario government which has considered this whole matter at great length. It seems to me it would be valuable to obtain the views of that committee; it would save some time, at least. Similarly, I know of at least two organizations which have made surveys and which are now preparing briefs many hundreds of miles from here-one of them is in fact 2,000 miles from here-in the hope that they can appear before the committee and present their views. I suppose they could come to Ottawa, but again I suggest that this is the business of the people of Canada, even before it is the business of this House or of the committee. If arrangements can be made for submissions and presentations to be heard not only from electoral officers but from individuals and public groups, it seems to me the expense would be worth while. If, on the other hand, the only people we are to hear from are electoral officers I do not think it would be necessary for the entire committee to travel. It would be better to bring those persons to Ottawa.
[DOT] (5.30 p.m.)
If the leader of the House is not prepared to make changes in the terms of reference I hope the committee itself will request additional room in its terms of reference.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: May I ask the hon. member a question? He said he did not think a trip to the Atlantic provinces would be making the best use of public funds. Does he feel that interviewing a committee in Ottawa on the results of its trip to Australia might be of help to our committee?

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I said that. I said this was one instance where there would be ample justification. I doubt very much that the entire committee of the Ontario Legislature would be willing to come to Ottawa. But I do not see any justification for taking the entire committee from Ottawa into those three provinces to hear three people, though I am not questioning for a moment the value of hearing those three people.
On the question of electoral expenses, I think hon. members will agree that we have often found it difficult to keep this subject apart from our considerations of the elections Act generally. The chairman has been very lenient-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I am afraid I did not put my question well. The Ontario committee made a trip to Australia which is a substantially greater burden on the public purse than anything contemplated by this committee.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I never mentioned anything about Australia, Mr. Speaker. I did mention that proxy voting was a subject we might have to consider, and that this subject has already been studied in depth by another legislative body whose findings we could quickly obtain without putting the federal House to additional expense. This is an area in which a short trip to Toronto lasting a day, or two days at the most, would be justifiable.
As I was saying, the subject of election expenses kept creeping into our discussions while we were dealing with other sections of the act. It is difficult to keep the subject out of our discussion of other provisions in the legislation. This is a hazard which the poor chairman of the committee will have to live with-some aspects of this topic are bound to be discussed because of their direct relationship with other sections of the act.
I mention this as a reminder to the President of the Privy Council that it will not be easy to get through this work quickly before we deal in any manner with election expenses. I would point out that the report of the Election Expenses Commission, which has been gathering dust now for three years, will take a great deal of examination. It runs into two volumes. More than two years ago the political science department of the University of Saskatchewan held a two-day seminar to which it invited representatives of political parties, of the radio, television and newspaper media. One member of the commission was

present, together with a number of the commission's staff. Mr. Speaker, we found loopholes in that report that one could drive a tank through. I am not criticizing the commission; it was impossible for them to take account of every variation involving election expenses. This work will take time. I submit it is necessary to set up a special committee now, so that we can get moving.
A while ago I used the word "bi-partisan". At this point I want to say we have a good chairman on our committee-in addition, he is a nice fellow and he is very patient. Our committee is moving in a good direction when it comes to bi-partisan activity in the field of electoral reform. When we held our first meeting, purely for organization purposes, a member of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) was elected vice-chairman. I want to compliment the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome). I feel he was quite sincere when he moved that the election of the hon. member for Edmonton-Centre be made unanimous. He did not say this because he knew he could not win election; I believe he said it because he was sincerely anxious to have the best possible work done by the committee in as bi-partisan a manner as possible. In saying this, I in no way denigrate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) or disagree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles); I would be the last person in this House or anywhere else to question for one moment the capability of the hon. member for Hillsborough to be chairman. I just want to tell the House that the committee now has a vice-chairman at least from the Official Opposition.
I suggest that the President of the Privy Council ought to amend this motion by deleting from the committee's terms of reference the clause pertaining to the lowering of the voting age, since the government's intention has been made clear already in the Speech from the Throne. The matter has already been decided. For all the committee knows, the necessary legislation has already been drafted and is ready to be brought to the House for first reading and subsequent reference to the standing committee. In these circumstances, it is pointless for the committee to continue to deal with the subject of the lowering of the voting age. The intention of the government is perfectly clear, and I hope it is unchangeable. It has decided to bring in legislation lowering the voting age and in these circumstances this reference, too, in addition to those concerning sections 62 and
November 19, 1969

63 of the act, could be deleted from the terms of reference.
Further, it is incumbent on the President of the Privy Council to tell the House now whether there are any other matters affecting electoral reform on which the government has already made up its mind-as it has a right to do; after all, it is the government. Let us not go through all this again. If there are matters upon which the government has already reached a decision, the minister should inform us now and delete those subjects from the committee's terms of reference. Even better, he should bring in a bill dealing with those matters which have already been decided, and the committee could consider it while it is considering the other sections of the Act. The President of the Privy Council owes this to the House, if for no other reason than as a gesture of sincerity and intent. Let us not bypass the terms of reference of a standing committee. No matter how minor the decision, let the government disclose it, instead of allowing the committee to spend fruitless hours debating the subject.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I have said all I want to say for the moment on this matter. I hope the motion will pass and that the government will recognize the points made this afternoon by members on this side of the House. While there may be difficulties of a partisan nature with other committees, this is surely one committee where there should not be such difficulties. The government should feel free to be completely open and honest with the opposition. If they are, the committee will accept its proposals on those terms and will be able properly to deal with matters put before them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Like so many others, Mr. Speaker, I want to underline what the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said in rather moderate terms, namely that this is a tough act to follow. I had hoped there would not be quite so wide-sweeping observations about the actions of various committees because, if one looks at the committee system as a whole, some committees are working very well. I have had a fair amount of experience with committees over the years, and while some can stand a great deal of improvement, others are operating smoothly. I, too, have some very grave reservations about some of the decisions that have been taken by committees, decisions that were more or less unilateral,
Privileges and Elections taken without consulting Mr. Speaker, whose budget is thereby affected.
For those who feel that committees should remain chairbound in Ottawa, let me say there are far too many regions of this country that are a big blank map to the majority of members. Very shortly we will be considering a bill dealing with national parks. I remember a committee visiting some of our national parks, and it was just as well it did because two thirds of the members had never been in a mountain national park in their lives. Yet they were being asked to declare their views, on government policy on national parks.
This also brings to mind a newspaper article I saw the other day written by a political scientist from the University of Toronto, who thought that committees were benefiting far more from actions of government members on the committees. On the broadcasting committee two years ago, 26 out of 29 amendments accepted by the committee were moved by government members. What happened was that amendments were typed out on slips of paper and handed to government members to put forward, and this is how they were accepted. This sort of thing happens all too often. Someone whose knowledge of this institution is in inverse proportion to his distance from the institution comes here to present general statements and observations, and this sort of thing does more harm than good.
In regard to the terms of reference of this committee, I, too, would have preferred to see the government move in a much more acceptable way than referring to this matter in the way it did in the Speech from the Throne. I should have liked to see the government accept certain recommendations made by the House. After all, the cabinet is responsible to the House. This House does not exist as a mere rubber stamp for the executive. If you try to get that point across, frankly you are looked at with wide open eyes by certain members of the cabinet.
I think other matters should have been included in the terms of reference. I would have thought the whole question of elections should have been examined, outside of the question of election expenses which are not relevant to this discussion at all. We might also have had the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act referred to the Committee for examination. I say that because this legislation has received but one test in practice. Immediately the electoral boundaries commissions made their reports, we saw how impractical was the method adopted. It left members

November 19, 1969
Privileges and Elections of this House completely defenceless in the face of independent commissions that all too often demonstrated no rhyme or reason for the decisions that were made. The burden seemed to be on us to prove that the commissions were wrong.
I have on the Order Paper a public bill which I trust will be debated later this session dealing with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. However, this is but one point in the Act that needs attention; there are others. It seems to me that the whole election machinery should be judged as a package, and this can only be done if the legislation is referred to committee. If it is impossible to do this now, then I trust the government will decide that this is the next item to be referred to the committee.
In the committee's examination of the Act I hope attention will be paid to one very difficult problem, and this concerns the broadcasting of election results on the Atlantic coast before the polls on the prairies and the Pacific coast have closed. As long as we had only radio and the CTV and CBC television systems to contend with, there was no worry because they were able to impose a news blackout. I think it is quite right that they should.
The system that prevails in the country to the south of us, is, I think, absolutely ludicrous. For example, people in California know hours before their polls close what the early trends are in the Atlantic states. In this day and age people tend to vote during the remaining three hours of election day, especially in urban centres. All they need to see how things are progressing elsewhere is to turn on the television set. This is particularly the case in summer elections. A great number of people who are trend followers are going to change their minds; that is a foregone conclusion.
One way to circumvent this dissemination of election information is to impose a similar ban on cable networks. We cannot, of course, control news services of the United States. If election results from the Atlantic provinces are broadcast by U.S. networks, are flashed to Montana or Washington and picked up by Canadian television viewers, then the whole exercise is for nought. But I do suggest that in Canada we should impose not only a news blackout by the two main broadcasting systems during polling hours, but also by cable television networks. Every effort should be made to block the news getting south to the United States networks so that they can flash it across the northern part of the United

States for easy reception by Canadian television viewers whose sets can capture the United States signals.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution will pass and that in due course the committee will come up with a number of changes, including those in connection with hospital voting and service voting, particularly those overseas. Consideration should also be given to individuals travelling overseas and members of the public service who, by reason of their duties, have been posted abroad. These people should also have the right to vote. I know it would not be easy to have such a system, but surely with a little bit of ingenuity something could be done to enable these people to record their vote without being identified as a particular group.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in a very few moments I wish to make some of the points that I believe should be of concern to the committee. There should be the widest possible franchise for the electorate.
The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the fact that our foreign service people should have an opportunity to have their say in domestic affairs, an opportunity they now do not have. Yet, it was borne in upon me, by reason of a trip just completed to India and Ceylon, that in high commission offices the military attache has the preferred privilege of a vote in a federal election while third secretaries do not. It seems that any sensible committee of this House of Commons should be able to straighten that problem out in no time at all.
I wish to point out the poll system is not always suitable for those who are ill or not able to attend easily at a poll. There are paraplegics who find it difficult to attend most polls and impossible to attend others. There should be two approaches to this problem. First, I suggest a system similar to what we have in Nova Scotia, a transferable vote. I think the committee would do well to look at the Nova Scotia practice in that regard. It is much better than the federal practice. Second, a conveniently located special poll should be set up in each constituency for people who attend by car or ambulance. They should be able to cast their vote outside instead of being put through the torture of being carted up a narrow staircase and put into very narrow quarters to cast their vote.
November 19, 1969

On an earlier occasion when we were discussing electoral reform, I mentioned the situation which occurred in one of my early election campaigns. A lady who certainly disagreed with my points of view did everything she could to defeat me. She went to the polls in an ambulance and was carried in on a stretcher. The poor soul did vote and that was actually the last act she performed on earth. She died on the way out of the polling booth. I have never forgotten that. I do not see why the process of voting cannot be made more civilized for those who have a disability.
Finally, with regard to lowering the voting age to 18, I cheerfully, willingly and gladly support it. I suspect if anyone could be disfranchised, it is those in older age brackets. After all, our children in Nova Scotia are now going to school with history books containing the actual words of the astronauts during the first moon landing earlier this year. History books are pretty well up to date. They are bright youngsters, very bright youngsters. I have seen a model Parliament in the Queen Elizabeth High School, which is a few blocks away from my house in Halifax. I have attended these sessions at least once every
Privileges and Elections year. I have been thoroughly impressed with the calibre of debate. These teenagers want to consider the problems which concern them, such as drugs and the like. They put forward sensible resolutions and make their decision in the best way possible.
With these thoughts, I endorse the resolution before us.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the flattering offer by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) I wish to assure the house in the immortal words of Calvin Coo-lidge, "I do not choose to run".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 20, 1969