1969-02-21

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report in French and in English of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean).
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Hull).
[Editor's note: for Reports above referred to, see Votes and Proceedings.]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house I have accepted an invitation extended to me by President Nixon to pay an official visit to the United States. The President very thoughtfully suggested I come to Washington shortly following the conclusion of his tour of Europe to permit him to share with me his impressions of the current situation there. I am happy to say that arrangements convenient to both of us have now been completed. I shall travel to Washington for two days of talks on March 24 and 25. I look forward to this opportunity to meet the President personally and to discuss with him a wide range of questions which are of mutual concern to our two countries.
A more detailed program will be released later, once it has been worked out.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister has received this invitation and is responding to it. I am sure this will provide an opportunity to improve relations between our country and the United States, which are so important to both countries.
We sometimes feel the weight of our great neighbour. I think we all agree there is very little that is more important to us in Canada than maintaining cordial relations between our country and the United States, together supporting our common interests and values in the world. The visit of the Prime Minister to Washington will provide a good opportunity to deepen the understanding between our two countries and their leaders.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that members in all parts of the house will be pleased the Prime Minister has received this invitation and that he proposes to accept it.
At this stage in world development I think it is increasingly important that the leaders of these two countries should discuss the many problems we have in common. I hope the Prime Minister will avail himself of this opportunity to impress upon the United States that while Canada wants to co-operate with our neighbour, at the same time there are measures which Canada must contemplate in order to strengthen our independence as a sovereign nation. That covers a great many items of which I am sure the Prime Minister is fully aware. We all wish him well in these discussions, and hope he will be able to give a favourable report when he returns.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to know that the Prime Minister has received an invitation from the new United States administration for a discussion of problems common to both countries.
We hope that during his talks with the American head of state our Prime Minister will be able, among other things, to make the American government understand the nature of the present talks between Communist China and Canada, and that we will not be adversely affected in the future. We hope also that the Prime Minister will bring back the assurance that the American administration does not frown upon the agreements will have to reach soon on the recognition of Communist China.
In short, we hope that the Prime Minister's trip will further promote Canada-United States relations.

February 21, 1869
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is really directed to the Minister ol Transport, but in view of its importance and in view of the absence of that minister perhaps I might direct it to the Prime Minister. It is in connection with the report of the task force on housing. Because of the growing anxiety in connection with this question, could the Prime Minister assure the house and the country that the government is not seriously considering freeing the interest rate on National Housing Act loans?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is a policy question which we will have to announce in due course.



INDUSTRY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister with respect to the report of the Watkins task force on foreign ownership and the structure of Canadian industry. What legislation does the government intend to introduce in the present session to implement the recommendations of this task force? I understand that some amendments are contemplated with respect to the Corporations Act for full disclosure of foreign control. With respect to the other recommendations is there any legislation in prospect for this session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the legislative program for the rest of the session was announced yesterday, perhaps just before the hon. member arrived, and that should be the answer to the question. If it is a representation that the hon. member is making, I have heard it, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if there is any committee of cabinet studying this report and if so how soon does he expect

to receive a report from it. Would the Prime Minister consider sending the task force report to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we try to avoid indicating what cabinet is studying; its agenda is generally considered as confidential.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
I would like to ask him if, following the recent disorders at the offices of the General Electric Company of Canada in Pakistan, the Canadian Government has taken steps to protect the Canadians who contribute personally to Pakistan's industrial development.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this question falls within the competence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and therefore I will pass it on to him.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, while a precedent was almost created by the visits of President Eisenhower and President Kennedy to Canada, as the first nation to be visited by new U.S. presidents on assuming office, and it is now too late to expect such a visit to precede visits to other nations, may I ask whether an invitation has been extended to President Nixon, who has been a good friend to Canada throughout the years, to visit Canada and to address parliament?
At the same time, in connection with visits, I should like to ask if there is any foundation for the suggestion that Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Charles, following his investiture as Prince of Wales, will be visiting Canada this fall? I should also like to ask whether such an invitation was conveyed to Her Majesty by the Prime Minister when in London.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the first question, the idea of a visit by President Nixon to Canada was
February 21, 1969



explored at the same time as discussions took place concerning a visit by me to the United States. This is still in the very informal discussion stage. On the second question I must confess I have not heard of such an idea, and did not discuss it with Her Majesty.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister give consideration to inviting the Queen of Canada and the prospective King of Canada to visit Canada at the earliest possible date, following the investiture of the Prince.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Broadview.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was ready to answer. He is always willing to answer. I wonder why some other member was called. It was a perfectly proper question to ask, even today in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question was whether I would give consideration and the answer is that I would. I had the pleasure of meeting the Prince in London. I must say that he struck me as being a very likeable, remarkable young man, and very mature and pleasant for his age.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the close relationship between Premier Smallwood of Newfoundland and President Nixon is it the intention of the Prime Minister to invite Premier Smallwood to join him on his visit to Washington?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



IMMIGRATION


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Has he received a letter from a group of Czech refugees in Montreal, complaining that, despite commitments concerning the teaching of the two official languages of Canada, such commitments were altered unilaterally, and they are not allowed to choose their language of instruction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not recall having received such a letter, 29180-368
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker. However, I can say that the Quebec premier, Mr. Bertrand, and myself, exchanged letters on that matter, and that the federal government is willing to co-operate with the province of Quebec with a view to ensuring immigrants in that province the opportunity to learn French. I am sure that neither Quebec's policy nor ours is to force immigrants to learn a given language.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like an assurance from the Prime Minister. Does the policy regarding Czech refugees residing in the province of Quebec differ from the one applied in other provinces? Are those refugees not free to choose the language they want to learn?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel the hon. member is only repeating substantially the question he put earlier.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the meaning of your intervention.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggested to the hon. member that his supplementary question was substantially the same as the one he put first.



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS AND DISPUTES INVESTIGATION ACT


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-tings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, in the absence of any mention of the reintroduction of Bill C-186 of last session on the list of legislation presented to the house yesterday by the President of the Privy Council, I asked the Prime Minister whether the government intended to reintroduce that measure or whether it was to be abandoned.
The Prime Minister answered to the effect that, as far as he knew, it was not included in the speech from the throne. Let me refer to the speech from the throne, Mr. Speaker, as reported at page 7 of Hansard for September 12, where it is stated that a measure would be introduced to correct a number of particular injustices, including those resulting from certain provisions of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act.

February 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows he cannot make a speech. Would he kindly come to the question?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to correct something that happened yesterday. At page 9 of Hansard for the same day it is recorded in the throne speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am willing to listen to the hon. member but perhaps he might ask his question directly, and as quickly as possible.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have to lay the background of my question. Perhaps I should do so on a point of order. On the next page we have item number 13 on the list of bills presented-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that the hon. member should be given an opportunity to put the question.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Following the speech from the throne the Prime Minister listed 47 bills that were to be dealt with this session. Number 13 was enunciated as a bill to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. My question is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: Thank you very much. I am sure hon. members will agree that it was well worth waiting for. My question is whether, if item number 13, with reference to the speech from the throne is not a reference to Bill C-186 during the last session, the Prime Minister will advise the house what it did refer to, in view of the fact there was no mention of a bill to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act in the list given yesterday by the President of the Privy Council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this item of legislation will result in legislation which we think will follow from the Woods report, which has not yet been tabled in this house. It has not yet reached the stage where the government has decided what precise policy it wants to apply. Therefore this will apply in the next session of parliament. We want to deal with these matters. I have taken note that the Conservative party stands for the adoption of Bill C-186.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party has expressed no stand on-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: No stand on anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression that we are now getting into a debate, and I am wondering whether we might not give the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond an opportunity to ask a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege. If I could state my own personal view I would say that Bill C-186 should not be reintroduced, and not passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid the hon. member has no point of order and no question of privilege, but the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary question.



AVAILABILITY OF ENGLISH COPIES OF ORDER PAPER

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a supplementary question, but in order to protect my priority I am rising on a point of order.
My point of order is that the English copy of the order paper today is not present, and since this government has always hidden behind the fact that French and English copies of legislation were not available, I do not see how we can possibly sit today under this government without the English copy of the Orders of the Day.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I have an English copy of the Orders of the Day in my hand.


An hon. Member:: We haven't got it.


Donald MacInnis: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, what has just happened now is an indication that the only way English speaking members of this house can get a copy of the Orders of the Day-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
February 21, 1969


Donald MacInnis: The only way we are going to get copies of the Orders of the Day is by standing up and making a protest in the house. I think this is a ridiculous situation, when I must stand in my place and complain about the fact-


An hon. Member:: You were right when you said "ridiculous".


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: It is ridiculous that when I come into the house-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Every time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether the Chair might have the co-operation of all hon. members so that I may hear the point of order and make a ruling on it.


Mr. Ricard:: Ask the Grits to shut up.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, again I repeat the same word, that it is a ridiculous situation when a member comes into the house and makes a request for the Orders of the Day, especially the English copy, and is told it is not available. Then when he raises a point of order the house leader informs the house that he has a copy, although many other members still do not have a copy. Then a copy is suddenly rushed over to me because I have raised a point of order.
I come back to the fact that this government continually hides behind the fact that they cannot come forward with certain measures because the French copy cannot be made available, or both copies are not available. I ask the Prime Minister to knuckle down, get to work and get things done.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has made his point. I can assure him that an effort will be made, and is made at all times, to make sure that all the sessional papers are available to hon. members. I am not sure why there was a delay this morning. However, I shall make the necessary inquiries and ensure that there is no repetition of the delay, if in fact there was one.


Donald MacInnis: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker, I keep running into the same harangue from government members every time I raise a point of order. I say to them that I can stand
Inquiries of the Ministry here and wait them out. This is not my choice of words, but if the bums continue to fall, hold them up.



OLD AGE SECURITY


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. He and I may not entertain the house so well as has been done in the last few minutes, but I have a serious question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Your halo is getting a little tight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In
view of the fact that the president of the Privy Council yesterday left a few days in the spring schedule for a budget presentation, will the Minister of Finance take advantage of that opportunity, whether or not he does anything else, to correct the situation under which old age pensioners, when they get the guaranteed income supplement, have to pay income tax?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider tjie very serious representations of my hon. friend.



THE BUDGET


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance has shown, if I may say so, the good sense to reverse himself in connection with the white paper on tax reform, I wonder whether he is seriously considering presenting the budget and reversing himself in this regard also, so that the country may have a full statement of its economic and financial position.


Edgar John Benson: In this regard, Mr. Speaker, I have not reversed myself in respect of the white paper. It was a matter of whether or not a bill would be in the white paper that was presented. The bill cannot be drafted by June. That is the reason for presenting tbe white paper without the draft bill included. On the second matter, we are continually looking at the economic situation, bearing in mind the forecast made on October 22, and if there are substantial changes I will present a budget. I have not indicated that I will not present a budget this spring; I have simply

February 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry said it will depend on the situation. In any case, I have indicated to the house that we will present a review of the economic situation to the house, given an appropriate opportunity.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, When will the Minister of Finance be in a position to inform the house definitely as to whether or not we will have a budget this spring?


Edgar John Benson: I would be pleased to do this in due course. I should indicate to my hon. friend that, like my predecessor, I am not tied to one budget in a year. If the economic situation changes materially, I would be quite willing to bring forward what the government considers to be the necessary economic measures.



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport who, according to the list, should be here today, perhaps his parliamentary secretary or the Prime Minister could take note of this question. In view of the claim by Mr. Martin Goldfarb that his firm's housing study commissioned by the task force was, to use his own word, bastardized, has the minister received complaints about the illegitimate use of other studies and, if so, how many?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. lady is asking, in effect, whether the government has received representations, and I would think that a question in those terms is not in order.


Winona Grace MacInnis: May
I ask, then, whether or not the report of the Hellyer task force on housing will be referred to a standing committee of this house for study?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: I will discuss that matter with the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether he plans to have the report studied by a standing committee.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Prime Minister,
[Mr. Benson.)
Mr. Speaker. Can the right hon. gentleman state when he intends to go ahead with the other two major recommendations of the B and B Commission, namely, the amendment to section 133 of the British North America Act establishing two official languages, and the insertion of a new section 93A guaranteeing educational rights from coast to coast?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The first question was the subject of one of the items on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference two weeks ago. The question of bilingualism in Canada was referred to the conference by the continuing committee of officials, and it has in turn now been referred by the conference to a committee of ministers which is in process of being set up. I am writing to the premiers to that effect and proposing some dates in the near future for such meetings.
As to the second question, it is covered of course by the second volume of the report dealing, among other things, with section 93 of the British North America Act. This has not yet been looked at by the continuing committee of officials, but it has been referred to that committee for study, so that ultimately a report may be submitted to the conference.



COMOX-ALBERNI-ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTION

Pierre Elliott Trudeau: May I take this opportunity to answer a question which was put to me a day or two ago about the vacancy in the federal constituency of Comox-Alberni? I should now like to inform the house that by order in Council No. P.C. 1969-342 dated yesterday a writ was issued for a by-election to be held to fill the vacancy in that federal electoral district on Tuesday, April 8, 1969.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Col-chesler North):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the reported statement by Mr. Masse in Quebec concerning the possible suspension of that province's language bill, on the grounds that it meets the requirements of neither French
February 21, 19G9



nor English, is it still the intention of the Prime Minister to go ahead with a federal
bin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know who was quoted by the hon. member, but we are not generally deterred by some opposition to the language bill. Creeping bilingualism is not something which frightens us as much as it does some members on the other side of the house.


Robert Carman Coates: I must apologize to the Prime Minister for my lousy English in the pronunciation of French names. The gentleman's name is Masse-M-a-s-s-e. Has the Prime Minister yet received a report from the ministerial review committee, and can he say whether there has been any change in the government's plans as a result of that report?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not sure what the ministerial review committee is, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Percy V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: My
question is addressed to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Has he taken cognizance of Bruce Hutchison's two recent articles in the Globe and Mail on the subject of relations between Canada and the United States on the NATO question?


Mr. Speaker:: The question is not in order.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
I should like to ask him if he has met or will be meeting today Mayor Drapeau who is presently in Ottawa, and if it is likely that a final decision will be taken in respect of Man and His World? Can the minister give us any particulars in this respect?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The means to arrive at a decision matter very little. In this instance it is the decision itself that matters and that decision will be taken within a few days, as I said yesterday.


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry I have asked the minister whether he has met or is going to meet Mayor Drapeau today to discuss that matter, since Mr. Drapeau is in Ottawa now?


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Georges-J. Valade: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I have directed a very specific question to the minister, namely, whether he will meet the mayor of Montreal today? It is quite simple., We want to know if he is going or not to meet-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member can ask the question, but he cannot raise a point of order when a minister refuses to answer his question.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Robert Simpson: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Speaker. Has he been made aware of the report that the family of Mrs. John Driver of the Garden River Indian reserve has been evicted to the streets of Toronto and, if so, what action does the minister intend to take?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have also read the article published this morning on the subject. The department has contacted Mrs. Driver and has offered to help her, but the lady told the officials that she could manage all by herself.


Robert Simpson: Does the minister intend to recommend changes in legislation to allow the Government of Canada to extend to Indians who have left the reserves the same privileges as are available to Indians on the reserves, and to extend some or all of these services to the Metis people also?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope that we will soon be able to indicate our new Indian affairs policy, and I intend to propose that the services enjoyed by white people be extended to all the native people of Canada.

February 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry



L.S.D.-INVESTIGATION BY R.C.M.P. INTO ILLEGAL IMPORTATION

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My
question is directed to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. On Monday last I asked him some questions with regard to allegations concerning vast drug importations into Canada, and he undertook at that time to look into the matter and make a statement. Is the hon. gentleman in a position to do that now?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Solicitor General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I take it the hon. gentleman is referring to his question as it
appeared on page 5584 of Hansard'!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is correct.


George James McIlraith: I take it the first question was based on a newspaper item of that day.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: And on
other reports as well.


George James McIlraith: There was quite a headline on it. In any event, as to the newspaper report, I cannot gauge its accurancy and perhaps there is no point in my commenting on the story.
The latter question, which is more specific, had to do with the suggestion that the drug was being manufactured in Canada in Canadian government laboratories. There is no foundation whatever for that allegation- none whatever. As for the employee mentioned, the person to whom I think the hon. member referred is not an employee, and was in the process of being charged with being found in possession of hashish, not l.s.d.



COMPLAINT AS TO AVAILABILITY OF BOX CARS

John George Diefenbaker: 
Jean-Luc Pepin: I could use the occasion to make a report on the situation as it is today, but I know you would stop me, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the question is that I am meeting on Monday in Winnipeg with the transportation committee and I have made a special request to both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. to send their top men. I will bring this representation by the right hon. gentleman, and previous representations, to their attention.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank the minister for his reply, because I have received representations today to the effect that no action has been taken, and farmers are absolutely desperate in these areas.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker, and I have accurate figures here to demonstrate that the situation has been improving. I think the figures demonstrate that there has been progress.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coasi Chilcolin):: supplementary question. Will the minister also make representations on behalf of the numerous lumber and pulp industries in British Columbia which are presently being starved for box car service?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That question shows the dimensions of the problem. If you use too many box cars to carry wheat, somebody else suffers. It is really a matter of adjusting the situation in the best possible interests of all concerned.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the question put and the answers given. In view of the complexity of this situation, can the minister ascertain whether the railways are maintaining an equal supply of box cars for grain and for pulp movement, or does the number fluctuate from week to week? In view of the complexity of this problem would the minister also agree that the situation is serious enough to require the appointment of a transport controller?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I said before, Mr. Speaker, I have the full support of everybody involved, the producer organizations, the Wheat Board, the Board of Grain Commissioners. Everybody agrees that the best way to approach the
February 21, 1969

problem is through the transportation committee. However, in order to make doubly sure, I have appointed myself supervisor over what the transportation committee is doing. That is the purpose of the meeting in Winnipeg on Monday.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A further supplementary question. In the course of carrying out these duties is the minister having any discussions with the officials of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and instructing them as to the requirements of the grain shippers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I use the most diplomatic way of getting results.


Hon. George  Kees@Prince Edward-Has-lings: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister pointed out a few moments ago there is an obvious shortage of box cars in Canada. In view of this, would he draw the fact to the attention of the presidents of the two railways in order to get more box cars built, in a hurry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As intelligent as the hon. member is, I had already thought of that myself.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I should like to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether in the course of his discussions he will endeavour to ascertain if there were something like 5,000 fewer box car loadings of grain in the month of January as compared with the previous year.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs may I address my question to the Minister of National Defence.
In light of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the government will not wait for the recommendations of the external affairs committee before presenting its decision on NATO policy, would the Minister of National Defence indicate to the house and to the members of this committee at what date we can expect the government to come down with its decision, so that the committee can anticipate the date and attempt to get its recommendations to the minister beforehand?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker I do not think it is up to me to indicate a date. As everyone knows,
Inquiries of the Ministry the committee of the cabinet that is dealing with this particular problem is meeting as often as possible. I think both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated that a decision on this particular problem is going to be made in the very near future-if indeed it is not imminent.
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): May I ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can give the house any explanation as to why, in view of the fact that the government does not propose to wait for the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, there is any possible justification for a further delay in announcing government policy in regard to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Speaker@: Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich is rising on a supplementary question.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to wait until the question is answered either by the Prime Minister or the Minister of National Defence.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I might just clarify this by saying that I have had discussions with the minister, and we had expected the committee might be able to bring in its report sooner than apparently is the case, now that I have heard the date mentioned this morning. With the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence we are considering-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And the Postmaster General.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the Postmaster General, as the hon. gentleman says-we are considering whether we will bring down our policy later than we had wanted. Our view was that we should make the announcement as soon as possible, so that the NATO meetings in Washington would be fully informed of Canada's position; that we tell our allies in advance what our decision was. However, we realize the importance of waiting for the report of the house committee, and this may make us reconsider the date.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Am I to understand from what the Prime Minister says that it is possible the government will not announce its policy prior to the meetings of the ministers, although the Prime Minister had previously indicated that

February 21, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry this was the first firm objective of his government? Am I to understand that the announcement of government policy may now be delayed to some point later than the meeting of ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I intended to convey. We are still looking at that date as the ultimate deadline-I believe it is April 10.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had wanted to get our decision in somewhere around the middle of March, so that after the cabinet had made up its own mind we would be able to inform our allies sufficiently in advance of this date. Now the new date for the report of the standing committee is known, we may have to postpone our decision to a date later than the middle of March; that is to say, if the committee does not submit its report earlier than it says it can.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. My reading of the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at Carleton University is to the effect that the government did not intend to wait for the review committee decision, which I took to be the committee of cabinet that was reviewing this matter. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the question of not waiting for a report applies only to the standing committee, not to the review committee, or is the government prepared to speed up the work of the external affairs committee of this house so that both reports can be put before the government prior to any decision being made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister was reported, but as I understood the question originally asked was whether we were going to wait for the report of the committee of the house. I believe that was the question.
My answer to that is that we cannot determine the timing of the committee's report. The committee of the house will decide when it will report. We have now heard that the committee cannot report as soon as we had hoped, so we are considering postponing the date of our own decision. The decision will only be taken, of course, after the other review committee of which the hon. member talks, the governmental review committee, has completed its work.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question to the

Prime Minister. Would a delay possibly be brought on by the imposition of a roster system on the cabinet committee?


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the other questions. Was the Secretary of State for External Affairs stating government policy at Carleton University when he is alleged to have said that Canada should maintain its traditional ties-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Then may I rephrase the question. Is it the policy of the government to maintain our traditional ties with NATO and the Commonwealth, and to develop our interests in the Pacific and Latin America? Has this been decided as government policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows-it has been said many times-that this policy is under review, and we are planning to announce parts of it in due course. We have discussed the naval part, and we hope to announce our policy either by the middle of March or as soon thereafter as the parliamentary committee submits its report.


David Anderson: A further supplementary question. In view of what the Prime Minister recently said on this point, can we assume that no decision will be made by the cabinet committee or the ministers involved until mid March? In other words, can the committee take until mid March to present its views?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course, Mr. Speaker. We had not planned to make our decision before mid March. I answered a moment ago that we were considering perhaps making it later, if that would accommodate the parliamentary committee of the house.



WHEAT-STEPS TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH RUSSIA

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the Soviet Union indicated that it will take up the option on 150 million bushels of wheat in the current crop year?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the
answer given by the acting minister last Friday is still valid. Discussions are going on.
February 21, 1969	COMMONS



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON DRYING OPERATION

Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is several weeks since he reported to the house on the quantity and condition of grain that has been dried. Could he make a further report on the subject, say at the end of the month or at the beginning of next month, by way of a statement on motions?
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry,
Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, there is a report available from the grain board which gives the picture of the drying situation as of January 31. I will gladly send my hon. friend a copy of it.


Edward Richard Schreyer: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That report deals with the situation as it was on January 31. I wanted to know whether the minister would make a statement on motions with regard to the situation as it will be at the end of February. He could make a statement at the end of the month, perhaps. Millions of bushels are involved and our information on this subject ought to be more up to date than that contained in the report he referred to.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if my memory serves me correctly, the report is a monthly one. A similar report will be issued at the end of February. I will gladly speak on the matter at that time.


Mr. R. R. Scutham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It has become apparent that, although large numbers of dryers are available, farmers have not had cash to bring those dryers into correct positions. What steps will the government take to meet this emergency?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
Minister of Agriculture could answer.


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have had several meetings with the ministers of agriculture of the three prairie provinces. A system similar to that of co-ordinating committees has been set up in order to be helpful in positioning dryers where they may be of most benefit to farmers.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day I think the hon. member for Churchill ought to be allowed a question that is supplementary to a previous one he asked.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, my question is a different one.
DEBATES	5803
Animal Contagious Diseases Act HOUSE OF COMMONS



AVAILABILITY OF ENGLISH COPIES OF ORDER PAPER

Mr. Speaker:: I shall call orders of the day. Perhaps before doing so, however, I might be allowed to make a short reference to the point of order raised earlier by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis). It has been indicated to me that the unfortunate delay referred to earlier was caused by a mechanical breakdown at the printing bureau. The issuing of the order paper was therefore delayed and I apologize to hon. members for the delay.


Richard Russell Southam: Is that why Hansard has been delayed also, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that this is the case.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-156, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, be read the third time and passed.


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading of the bill I wish to protest once more the government's method of handling bills related to the agricultural industry. I do not like the way tfiose bills have been brought before the house. Although I do not question the government's good intentions in introducing amendments to agricultural legislation, I have grave doubts about the legality of certain procedures set out in those amendments. Those engaged in agriculture will have to avail themselves of a cumbersome machinery if they are to take advantage of the provisions of recent amendments.
When Bill C-156 first came before the house the members of my party protested the provision in it that would enable a government appointed inspector to seize animals or produce. We also protested the fact that appeals could only be brought to the assessor appointed by the government. A similar provision has been incorporated in other bills recently before this house. Furthermore the decision of the government appointed assessor is final, there can be no appeal to any court. It seems that the government has done all it
February 21, 1S69

Animal Contagious Diseases Act can to protect itself from the claims of farmers, farm corporations or industries allied to farming. We feel the provisions of the bill are most unjust. In some respect they are harsher than the provisions of companion bills to do with agriculture. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Moore) will deal with some aspects of this bill.
I point out to the bouse that the wording of section 14A(3), on page 2 of the bill, is in part as follows:
The provisions of Part II of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, with such modifications as circumstances require,-
The meaning of those words is clear. Once this bill has been passed by parliament, regulations to be drafted can only have the effect of curtailing the rights of farmers. At this point we have no idea what those "modifications as circumstances require" will be. I think the government is going about its business in the wrong way. We are giving a blank cheque to departmental officials when we tell them they may draw such regulations as circumstances may require. That language in the bill is absolutely unfair to the agricultural industry. In essence, those words mean that those drafting the regulations are responsible to one party only in any dispute, the government. Naturally they are duty-bound by their very occupation, sense of responsibility and obligation to ensure in each instance that the actions, intent and welfare of the government department are well protected. As I said previously, the original intent of the bill may have been good but the regulations are all one-sided. It is almost impossible for individual farmers or co-operatives in many instances to seek the redress which is available to other citizens and industries in Canada.
[DOT] (12 noon)
The minister indicated in committee and in the house that a judge of the Supreme Court or a superior court may be appointed an assessor. Any decision cannot be considered as that of a court as the judge is merely acting as an arbitrator. It is not right that once a decision has been made there can be no appeal to a court. Other aspects of this bill which I cannot accept are the powers of inspectors and the open-ended terms of the compensation which may be given. I will leave these to other competent members of my party to deal with.
I conclude by saying that as a responsible representative of the agricultural industry I

cannot and will not accept the terms of this bill as prescribed.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaioon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, this bill was studied in committee and is now at the final stage of discussion in the house. The bill sets out the level of compensation to which a farmer or producer is entitled. As was stated by the previous speaker, the amount of compensation will be set by the Governor in Council or the government in their wisdom. On appeal the farmer or producer is limited to the compensation set by the Governor in Council.
The bill provides that there may be an appeal to an assessor where no maximum amount of compensation has been prescribed for an animal pursuant to section 12, or where the compensation awarded to the farmer is less than the maximum compensation prescribed under the act, or where no compensation is awarded to the farmer, on the ground that the failure to award compensation was unreasonable. It is within these limits that any individual who feels he has been unjustly dealt with must appeal. As I understand the bill, a farmer or producer cannot go to a court and claim that the basic amount of compensation set by the Governor in Council is wrong.
I give the government credit for their attempt to move forward in this field in order to deal more effectively and fairly with the farmer and producer. However, the fact is they have reserved for themselves the right to decide when they are being fair and when they are not. This is tfie point at issue. It is for this reason I feel they are more concerned about protecting the government than protecting the position of the farmer.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I should like once again to draw the minister's attention to the matter of compensation to be paid for pure-bred and grade animals.
I suggest that this question has not been thoroughly looked into by the committee. I do not know whether they are trying to ignore the situation or will not face up to the facte, but I wish to tell the minister that a review of the situation prevailing not only in our area but all over Canada would reveal that 60 to 75 per cent of our dairy cattle are grade animals.
And this is not a whim of the people but just an effort to get a better yield.
February 21. 1969	COMMONS
I know a number of farmers who have marvelous Holstein herds, for instance, mixed with Ayrshire or Canadian breeds. In our cold areas, where it is difficult to get a top quality herd, I know of-and I have no hesitation at all in saying so-a number of grade dairy herds which are superior to some purebred herds.
In my opinion, when you think that a farmer will receive for his grade animals a compensation equal to 50 per cent of their normal value, when at the productive and commercial level his animals are worth as much as pure-bred animals, I have no hesitation in saying that he is discriminated against.
I have already called the attention of the minister to this point and I think that the officials will have to take the trouble to consider the situation which prevails in our areas-I am referring mainly to my own-in order to assess the degree of injustice suffered in the past.
Last year mention was made of dairy producers who had incurred tremendous losses. One of them for instance had lost 95 good dairy cows and he managed to recover only 50 per cent of their value because his animals were not pure-bred. However, they had been selected for the past 25 years which means that this farmer, like a number of others, incurred a tremendous loss. I have mentioned only one case in passing but 80 per cent of the herds in my area have been affected by contagious diseases and the farmers have paid dearly for the simple fact that they own grade animals.
Therefore, I ask the minister as well as the specialists-since there are some and since they are capable of judging such cases-to study this problem which is most important for our agriculture, in view of the high percentage of grade herds that we find in our areas.
I think that the case of a farmer who devoted 20 or 25 years to build up a good herd and who gets from the government, in case of an outbreak of contagious disease, a compensation that is 50 per cent of what others get, represents, I think, an example of the grave injustice that is sometimes inflicted on the farmers of our area.
I think it would be preferable, from now on, to take as a base the value of the dairy production of the herd in order to compensate the farmer and to treat him more fairly instead of considering the colour, the weight or the breed of the animal.
DEBATES	5805
Animal Contagious Diseases Act
I think that a good Canadian dairy cow is worth as much as any other, and that a good grade herd is worth as much from the productive point of view as any pure-bred herd.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
I believe that in all fairness the compensation should be based upon the yield of a dairy cow. As regards the compensation, we were told in committee that it had been increased as compared with that of previous years. We are very happy about that, but we would still be happier if the amount of such compensation were set by the law.
The old law provided a certain amount for pure-bred animals as well as for grade animals. Indicating the maximum amount in the law is a very dangerous thing, not for the officials but for the department itself. The minister, I wish to repeat it, is well qualified. The technicians working for his department are also well qualified. But nobody is either infallible or immortal. Since it is said that written words remain, it would be preferable to set in this legislation the maximum amounts of compensation. Moreover, the amount granted for grade animals should be, if not the equivalent, at least 80 per cent of the one prescribed for pure-bred animals.
The department now works according to regulations. The legislation is passed, the general principle of the bill is approved and then we have to wait for the regulations that are to be enacted by the department's officials. That is not really democratic, I believe, because the representatives of the people have absolutely no say in the drafting of those regulations. I should like us to be able, as in previous years, to know where we stand. We should no longer have to wait for a lav/ to be passed in the hope that the enacted regulations will be in accordance with it.
I once experienced difficulties with such a system of regulations, perhaps not with regard to agriculture but housing, for instance. I have already mentioned this in the house when I indicated that the regulations went against the legislation we had passed.
However, there is a danger, that of two or three less able officials who might turn up some day and change the regulations because they are allowed to do so every year or every six months, at will. The enforcement of this law, which is basically good, might be hampered by regulations which would not be adapted to it.
February 21, 1969'

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
As for the right to appeal, I think that the three months' period is quite a reasonable one. However sometimes it is not enough because of all the red tape involved and mainly because the farmers lack information.
I would want the officials in charge of enforcing this law to go on dealing with complaints, just as they used to do, once the deadline has been reached. More often than not, whether through ignorance or otherwise, the farmer has proved unable to meet such deadline. Farmers are not here in the house to follow our proceedings and they need some time to learn all about the law. Indeed, at such times when, as it has happened for the past few years, there is an outbreak of contagious disease, they are apt to panic and to lose their heads. And when they have finally picked themselves up and want to direct their requests through the proper channels, the three months' period mentioned in the law is over.
I shall deal very briefly with the third point. I have had many complaints with regard to the disposal of the carcasses of sick animals which problem has caused me many difficulties. It is understood that the farmer gets compensation for the animal, but he must sell the meat.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the fact that the farmer has to sell a dead animal to a recognized slaughter house lends itself to criticism. Of course, criticism must be avoided as much as possible, but it is rather difficult. I think much of the criticism is due to the fact that often the farmers feel that some slaughter houses take advantage of the situation to pay a ridiculously low price for the meat while, most of the time, the meat is worth as much as if the animal had not been killed because of disease.
This is another question that should be studied by the minister and his staff. I do not wanted to dwell on the matter unduly, because it is rather touchy; we are dealing with buyers and sellers, which means that this is really a family quarrel. I merely wish to point out to those who will apply these bills in the future, that when they get a complaint they should weigh the pros and cons in order to do justice, not only to the slaughter house but to the interested parties in the first instance, the farmers, who in addition to having lost cattle because of an epidemic must also lose 50 per cent on the value of the meat when the cattle is taken to the slaughter house.

Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to draw to the intention of the minister and his staff. I trust they will help to-correct some of the deficiencies that have existed in the past.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this bill is designed only to modernize the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. This it does to some extent. The compensation formerly paid under this act was $140-each for purebreds and $70 each for grade cattle slaughtered under any herd disease eradication program. It must be admitted that these figures are ridiculously low at the present time. The bill proposes to change them to amounts to be prescribed by the Governor in Council. It is my understanding that the proposed amounts are $120 for grade animals and $200 for purebreds. These figures are more realistic especially when applied to beef cattle where the salvage value of the carcass may be higher. However, this is certainly open to argument, and I am sure that the beef producers might argue the point.
In the case of dairy cattle these amounts may be much too low. I think it would be fairer to ensure to the owner a percentage of the replacement value of the animal. At the present stage in the improvement of dairy herds most so-called dairy cows are the result of artificial breeding for many generations. The value of these animals is therefore much higher than what the value of a grade animal used to be. There could be great discrimination in the case of a man who has a herd which becomes infected by a disease. Many animals of this type are very high producers, and the producer may have been raising them for many years.
The number of reactors to tests for bovine t.b. and brucellosis or contagious abortion is much less now than it has been in the past. This points to the success of the establishment of disease-free areas, testing for both diseases, and calfhood vaccination against brucellosis. Adequate compensation for the relatively few animals that must be condemned would not place much strain on the economy and would ensure the maximum cooperation of the herd owner.
I can understand the reason for slowing down the calfhood vaccination program at this point since it does interfere with later testing and causes problems in respect of
February 21, 1969

export In some cases the disinfecting of premises could be very costly and an additional hardship to the owner who has already suffered some hardship if he has had reactors. So I think some aid here would be in order.
I should like for a moment to refer to the clauses which deal with an appeal to the assessor. This matter has been well covered by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and will also be dealt with by another speaker or two. It has been stated that there are very few cases where an appeal has been made in the past. But this in no way changes the principle that a farmer should have the right to appeal the decision made by an appointee of the government. This principle should be spelled out in any legislation.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in this debate is on the same basis as my intervention in respect of Bill C-155. I have been horrified by what I consider to be a massive bureaucratic assault on civil liberties involved in bills dealing with what are relatively minor problems although problems which merit consideration. We protest against the method being adopted. I recant nothing I said with regard to Bill C-155. Here again, as a result of some rather wrong drafting, by importing into one bill provisions of another bill that are not related, some of the objectionable features of Bill C-155 have been brought into Bill C-156. The minister was not present at some committee hearings where I said a great deal about what I think is a slipshod method of drafting. An individual who is interested in this act can obtain an office consolidation of the act, but he will find that it refers him to another act and back and forth he will have to go. I complained most bitterly about this procedure in respect of Bill S-4, an act dealing with the marking of articles made from precious metals. Suddenly, by reference, we found ourselves involved with the Fisheries Act because it dealt with the method of disposing of goods which had been seized. There is nothing worse than having to sort out this type of thing.
First of all, I have said this bill is bad from a drafting point of view. Second, I come back to the point about the non-requirement of publication of regulations. I and other members of the opposition will keep insisting that there must be a requirement within the act itself and not just a reliance upon the government. There must be a requirement that any

Animal Contagious Diseases Act regulation made under the act will be tabled in parliament.
We have gone to a good deal of trouble to set up a committee on statutory instruments. It is in its preparatory stages, but the intent is to review all delegated legislation. This can be done if the regulations are tabled. It is not sufficient merely to say that they may be published in the Canada Gazette. As the minister knows, having sat with me on the procedure committee, we may also acquire a cumulative index of documents tabled by the ministry so that members will know where they are.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I do not know why there is resistance and seeming reluctance to take what appear to be sensible steps to publicize the approved regulations. I recognize the fact that regulations must be made under most acts. Certainly you cannot spell out everything in statutory form. But what is wrong with requiring under the act that all regulations be published?
The minister may be the most benevolent despot there is; he may say that we can rest assured that as long as he is the minister every regulation under the jurisdiction of his department will be published. He may even go farther and seek leave of the house to table them. That may be the minister's own view but we must remember that he is exercising his own discretion. The minister is not immortal and this act is not just for a year or so. Ministers come and go. Sometimes they are promoted, sometimes they are demoted and sometimes they are defeated.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Sometimes they die.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, and sometimes they are incapacitated.
Notwithstanding all the good wishes and the intentions of the minister, I will let him in on another secret. Anything the minister says and any undertaking he makes during the debate is not worth one farthing in a court of law. It is meaningless in binding him or his officials in a court of law. The assessors, who will presumably conduct themselves as judges, will say that nothing said in parliament is meaningful in so far as the interpretation of the regulations or the statute is concerned.
For this reason I should like it written into the act that any regulations shall be tabled within 15 days after the coming into force thereof or, if the house is not then sitting, within ten sitting days of the opening of the
5808	COMMONS
Animal Contagious Diseases Act session. This is how we do things in respect of many bills. Why was the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) so happy to do this in respect of the anti-dumping bill? There was no quarrelling about this on the part of the officials of the Department of Finance in respect of that measure or in respect of the Bank Act, for example. I do not see what is wrong with it.
Let me go one step further. Not only should the regulations made by the Governor in Council and the regulations made by the assessors be publicized but the rules ini respect of the conduct of hearings must be made known. I point out that in so far as the rules for the determination of assessments are concerned, these are to be made by the assessors subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. They are not regulations made by the Governor in Council. Therefore I put it to the minister that they would not be regulations required to be tabled or published under the Regulations Act. For this reason it is absolutely necessary that the regulations made by assessors after approval by the Governor in Council be published. Obviously there will have to be guidelines and uniformity. Why can they not be published?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: They will be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister may say what he wants, but they will not necessarily be published because there are no requirements for them to be published. We do not legislate on the basis of good intentions. The road to Hades is paved with good intentions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not going there so I don't know.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Perhaps the minister and I will meet up there. But let me say this. Why can we not have in this legislation this simple provision in respect of the regulations? I will have the same thing to say about Bill C-157.
The next question I want to ask is, why is it that Supreme Court or Exchequer Court judges have been chosen to be assessors? The minister's colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), and his predecessor have fulminated against this practice in this house. I do not know how many times the bar association and law societies have complained about the use of judges in extra-judicial proceedings. This practice has caused grave complaint. Nothing is said in this bill in respect of their remuneration. Are they to be

DEBATES	February 21. 1969
remunerated on a per diem basis for taking on this non-judicial work? There is nothing in the measure which says anything about that. It is a serious cause for complaint that some judges have a predilection for taking on extra-judicial work because it gives them a greater return over and above their salaries.
Apparently judges are going to be named as assessors either under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act or the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act. I suppose there will also be an assessor under the next bill C-157. These are not judicial roles, yet these are the men who are being picked. I suggest it would be far better for the minister to appoint other people as assessors. It is possible to find men who are well qualified to act as assessors and then provide the right of appeal to a court. This would be far better and would, I think, satisfy the sense of natural justice in all of us who are forever complaining about the predilection of administrations, federal and provincial, to establish boards, assessment commissions and what have you from which there shall be no appeal. This is a denial of natural justice. There is a bureaucratic opinion which suggests that there must be finality.
Let me tell the minister something more in respect of the powers of the assessor. He says he will appoint assessors. The assessor is the one who will actually hear the appeals. Let us consider how far we are going to go. As I suggested yesterday, the government gives with one hand and takes away with both hands.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: May I ask the hon. member-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister will have the right to speak.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Under
proposed section 14A of this bill we find that a farmer can appeal, where the compensation awarded to the farmer is less than the maximum, on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded was, unreasonable, or that the failure to award compensation was unreasonable. The maximums are prescribed by regulations. If we refer to section 13 of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act we find that it states:
Upon the hearing of an appeal brought pursuant to this Part, the assessor may
(a)	confirm the decision of the minister,
(b)	subject to any maximum amount of compensation prescribed pursuant to this act and applicable to the loss in respect of which the appeal is brought, vary the decision of the minister-
February 21. 1969

[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
What hollow hypocrisy! That is all it is. It says that a farmer may appeal the decision of the minister with regard to the compensation to be fixed for the loss of an animal. The farmer can go to an assessor and the assessor will adjudicate on the question, but subject to the maximum fixed by the regulations. And who in the blazes fixes the regulations but the minister?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Governor in Council.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, come now! Don't try to put us on.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister should sit down. He will have plenty of chance to be heard later.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not have the right to speak in this debate unless there is unanimous consent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I for one
will give you the right to answer. The minister has not spoken on third reading.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: My information is that when you move third reading of a bill you are deemed to have spoken, whether you have or not and I moved third reading.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister can reply. He will have to, because there are so many holes being found in the bill from a legal point of view.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are no holes at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says there are no holes at all. That shows the extent of his knowledge of the legal implications of the bill. The assessor may refer the matter back to the minister for such further action as the assessor may direct. But if the regulations prohibit the assessor from directing anything further, what is he doing? He is just spitting in the wind. The minister is not only playing in the game but he is fashioning the rules of the game and in many ways is acting as the referee. This is wrong.
The assessor has the limits of an award set out for him. Therefore how can you say that a man has a true right of appeal? If the minister, or the Governor in Council, in setting out the regulations makes the limits so narrow that they do not meet the requirements of special cases, what is the point of going to an assessor? You are just wasting your time.

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
These are the points I want to raise in regard to this bill. I will have much more to say about Bill C-157. I have not looked at the Animal Contagious Diseases Act to ascertain the rights of inspectors and matters of that sort, but I shall be dealing with that question. I just cannot accept the fact that under these acts inspectors, with no search warrant, no writ of assistance or similar legal document, may enter premises. Bill C-155 is concerned with a claim for compensation under the act. With regard to the bill to follow, Bill C-157, there does not have to be a claim for compensation; it is just a straight walk-in.
I will raise these points later, Mr. Speaker. I think these bills are badly drafted. They run counter to our principles of justice. They are an assault upon the rights of individual citizens. They are pure bureacracy run rampant.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not want to foul up the hon. member's argument, but it seems to be based on a misconception of what we are asking parliament to do. We are giving the farmer the right of appeal. This is something he never had before. It is not a question of withdrawing rights but of granting rights.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What sort of right of appeal is being given? I have complained about the kind of right of appeal that is being given. What tbe government professes to give with one hand it is taking away with the other.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: You are wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not
wrong. The proposed method of operation of the bill is wrong. If we had not considered Bill C-155 the day before yesterday I might have been tempted to agree on the surface with what the minister has said about giving the farmer the right of appeal. But the right of appeal granted under Bill C-155 is hardly worth the paper it is written on. The minister is giving the farmer nothing. This bill is just window-dressing.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, clause 1 of Bill C-156 repeals the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of subjection 2 of section 12 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and sets out new provisions with regard
5810	COMMONS
Animal Contagious Diseases Act to compensation for animals slaughtered under a disease eradication program. The bill gives to the Governor in Council the power to set rates of compensation which in the opinion of the government are deemed to be equitable. There is, of course, an appeal from the decision of the department, and in the event of an appeal a decision is made by a government appointed assessor.
On the face of it this is little more than an empty gesture by the minister. Even though the assessor appointed may be a judge, in this situation he will be nothing more than a government employee. It seems to me this is a poor way for the government to arrive at an equitable decision as to the amount of compensation that should be paid. I join the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in protesting against the fact that there is no appeal from the decision of the assessor. This provision seems to be nothing more than a denial of the inalienable right of any citizen to obtain justice under our democratic processes.
The bill fails to provide that the regulations shall be published in the Canada Gazette. Even if they are published in the Canada Gazette I do not think they will be given wide enough publicity because very few of the people concerned see that publication. Therefore they will not know what their rights are under the act.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We will put out a newsletter.


George Robson Muir: To whom will the newsletter be sent? If this information were tabled in parliament the minister's intentions would be generally known across the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) put out a newsletter the other day, too.


George Robson Muir: 
Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock?


Mr. Depuly Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 2 p.m.
Richard Russell Southam: When the house rose at one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, we were dealing with Bill C-156, an act to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. More specifically, we were considering the matter of an increase in compensation to farmers or producers for animals slaughtered under an area or herd disease eradication program.
The bill has been reviewed at some length by the Standing Committee on Agriculture, and in the committee sessions a considerable debate took place on new section 14A which has to do with the right of appeal. Along with other members of the committee I took strong exception to the implications of this section. I do not intend to belabour the point because I believe several other members of our party, much more capable of dealing with it because of their legal training, will be speaking on this important aspect of the legislation. In fact, several of my hon. friends have already done so, including the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who dealt with it at some length before the lunch break,
DEBATES	5811
Animal Contagious Diseases Act the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) and our house leader the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin).
I should like to question for a few moments certain aspects of clause 3 (1) of the bill which deals with the coming into force of this legislation and with making the payment of claims retroactive to September 26, 1968. How are these claims to be assessed? First of all, will each of these cases be reviewed automatically? Second, must a farmer make an application or an appeal on the basis of a former settlement? The bill stipulates that an applicant can make an appeal within three months. My third question is: in the light of the fact that it is now February 21, six months later than the date I mentioned, how is an appellant likely to be affected? Hon. members will note that no maximum or minimum amounts with respect to compensation are set out in the bill. Since some farmers may already have secured compensation under the terms of the old act, how are the officials, in appraising a claim under the new act, to determine the amount of compensation to be paid?
It seems to me that complications may well arise as a result of the failure to specify maximum and minimum amounts. I recall that in the committee we tried very hard to establish maxima and minima so that there might be at least an indication of the amount of compensation a farmer would receive. I believe difficulties are likely to arise in this connection. To put it in other words, farmers may be doubtful that it would be worth their while to appeal in the first place.
I could raise a number of other questions in connection with the bill but I know some of my hon. friends will be referring to them. Therefore I shall conclude my remarks by expressing the hope that the minister will explain the aspects of the legislation to which I have drawn attention.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for giving me the opportunity of expressing my opinion on third reading of Bill C-156.
I am aware that some improvements are found in this legislation, nevertheless, I have a few reservations to make. I sincerely believe that it does not go far enough; more details could have been incorporated into the text of the bill. I know that the compensation rate which was fixed to make up for the losses of animals caused by contagious
February 21. 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act diseases was, in a way, limited to a certain amount by the former act.
If amendments were incorporated in the act, it is because it was necessary to do away with those figures, in order to determine new ones better adapted to the current market. However, the act provides that the governor in council may prescribe the maximum compensations. If in so doing, account is taken of the various factors that should effectively be considered to determine the actual value of an animal, we can expect improvements. In fact, if I understood well the explanations given by the minister to the standing committee on agriculture, those are maximums which will be reviewed from time to time so that they will always be in relation with the actual market value.
It would be advisable, however, that the Department of Agriculture could take the necessary arrangements to inform animal owners about the maximum rates prescribed for the various types of animals so that owners can determine a little in advance the amount which will be awarded to them to compensate eventual losses.
I know that previously this legislation was only applicable to the species mentioned in the law, i.e. horses and cattle, but I am wondering whether it would not be possible to include also sheep and hogs, because contagious diseases also strike those animals down and their owners often sustain damages which quite often are not reasonably compensated. At all events, I am suggesting this to the minister and I hope he will give consideration to it.
I seize this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) the fact that breeders and farmers also suffer considerable damage.
I have often received complaints from breeders who send their animals to the slaughter house and when the grading is done, they find that 10 per cent of their herd is condemned or downgraded, which causes them a considerable loss. The disease is determined by competent people who condemn these animals. In my opinion, these losses should be provided for under a law which would enable the breeders to receive a compensation, because profits in this field are not very high already.
As far as the right of appeal is concerned, I think this bill is an improvement. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has dealt with the judicial aspects of the matter a few minutes ago. I do not feel qualified

to discuss the judicial aspect of this bill; however, I shall deal with its practical aspect.
Under the former legislation, that right of appeal did not exist. Since it now exists, if it not complicated by red tape which makes an appeal impossible, I think that the owner of the seized cattle could launch an appeal and hope that as soon as possible and not in 5 or 10 years, justice will be rendered to him. Now, it is really an improvement.
The legislation is made by human beings; they cannot be perfect, even if the Department of Agriculture is well-intentioned and accepts suggestions liable to improve legislation parliament is called upon to pass in the agricultural field as well as in others.
I think that members of the committee on agriculture made serious suggestions to convince the minister to establish reliable rates to determine the value of an animal. Then, the minister got out of it so well with wise arguments that the bill was not amended.
At this third reading stage, I wonder if we could not take those amendments in consideration. Any way, as a whole, the bill eliminates an injustice against breeders of top grade animals, because the real value was not considered under all its aspects. If the officials of the Department of Agriculture responsible for the application of the law takes all appropriate measures to give justice to producers then we could say that the legislation is an improvement to be welcomed.
In any event, there will surely be other sessions, and the act, in its present wording, will probably be passed by the government. Next year, an opportunity may be offered to amend it and I rely on the minister's sense of responsibility and honesty to do so, taking into account the recommendations and the suggestions to which the deficiencies of the present act may have given rise.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-156, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, has to do with the compensation which will be paid to farmers and livestock owners for animals condemned to be slaughtered because they have been infected with brucellosis, tuberculosis or other contagious diseases. This is a good amendment. It provides that from time to time the maximum amount of compensation to be paid shall be decreed by regulation instead of being fixed by statute. In other words, the act need not
February 21. 1969	COMMONS
be amended to provide for increased amounts of compensation.
Hon. members of the opposition have suggested this amendment is not too important since only a few thousand farmers or livestock operators will be affected each year. One cannot over-emphasize the importance to this country of the provisions of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. They are the cornerstone on which a healthy livestock industry in Canada may be built. Hon. members will recall that in 1951 there was an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Canada, with economic repercussions that represented the loss of many millions of dollars. It is most important that the border between Canada and the United States should be open for the unrestricted export of our cattle.
We discussed these amendments in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. Although the suggestion was made that the maximum amount of compensation to be paid on grade animals should be $120 and on purebred animals $200, I hope the minister will reconsider these amounts since I feel the figures set out in the regulations should have some bearing on the actual loss suffered by a farmer. The suggested figures may be adequate to compensate for ordinary, grade cattle and other animals. For high yield dairy animals the figures are not adequate. I suggest the compensation figure ought to represent the difference between the price realized at slaughter and the actual, market value of a similar, healthy animal. Such a provision will not cost the government very much money. Of 4,000 head of cattle condemned to be slaughtered least year only 8 per cent were purebreds.
An hon. member of the opposition suggested that compensation should be equal to 80 per cent of the actual market value of the animal that has been condemned. I think the figure ought to be close to 100 per cent. After all, the farmer has the expense of disposing of the animal, no matter what its stage of lactation is. The value of the animal may vary according to time of year. In addition to losing the animal the farmer must also pay for the cost of disinfecting and cleaning his premises. For very good or very poor farmers, that constitutes no great problem. The farmer with a first-class diary operation has his buildings in excellent condition and has no problem in disinfecting them. Similarly, the farmer with buildings consisting of a shed with a straw roof and some huts can touch a match to his property and burn it down. No
DEBATES	5813
Animal Contagious Diseases Act great trouble or expense is involved there. The majority of farmers lie between these extremes. Sometimes they may not have whitewashed or disinfected their buildings for many years and the cost of so doing is considerable. The costs incurred in such operations ought to be considered in the bill.
It is good to find an appeal provision in the bill. This is a fundamental right we expect to see included in government regulations of this type. The appeal machinery will be used seldom. As I said, there are only 3,000 to 4,000 compensation claims per year. Usually they are handled amicably by the inspector and the livestock owner. The appeal machinery will be used only where disputes arise.
In conclusion I wish to say this is a good amendment which will bring the act up to date and enable maximum amounts of compensation to be set by regulation.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make two or three observations. Undoubtedly future amounts of compensation paid under the act will increase. The bill has provisions allowing for great flexibility in that maximum amounts of compensation may be set from time to time by regulations. A government appointed inspector will investigate compensation claims and act on behalf of the government in a manner prescribed by regulation. The possibility of an appeal by a farmer to an assessor has been incorporated in the bill. In the future there will be many more cases of compensation and more appeals as more and more chemicals are used. The need for compensation will arise in many different ways and under different circumstances.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Under this bill, the assessor is closely bound by the regulations. In many cases the maximum will not be enough to cover special cases and there is no provision act whereby the assessor can award an amount higher than the maximum set by the regulations. I believe this should be changed. The assessor should be in a position to award more if there is good and reasonable ground for doing so. Does the clause which states that the assessor may refer the matter to the minister for further action suggest that the minister under certain circumstances could award more compensation than the prescribed maximum? I would be happy to hear if this is the correct interpretation of this clause.
February 21, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act
I do not feel it is good for the assessor to be appointed by the government. It is wrong not to have the right of appeal to a court. The farmer should always be entitled to take his case to court if he does not agree with the award of the government appointed assessor interpreting the regulations. I strongly recommend to the minister that the farmer be given the right to appeal to a court.
Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple
Creek): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) has left the house as I was going to compliment him on a very good speech. I agree with most of his remarks. However, I disagree with his closing comment with regard to the appeal clause, new section 14A. I suggest to him with all due respect that it makes a mockery of the word "appeal". It is not an appeal at all.
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) asked the minister why this clause was even being included in the act. The minister's reply was that it was not there before. This will become the law. Under British justice any individual in Canada can appeal to the courts on points of law. This right has been taken away from those who raise cattle. They must now appeal to an assessor, the department or the minister. An appeal from what? From what the assessor, the department and the minister have said. This is no appeal. The right of an individual to appeal has been taken away by this clause. I agree with the hon. member for Edmonton West when he stated a few moments ago that this is very untidy administration and untidy housekeeping.
New section 14A (3) reads:
The provisions of Part II of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, with such modifications as circumstances require, apply to appeals brought under this Act.
In whose opinion and under what circumstances are these modifications necessary? Will they be prescribed by the assessor, the department and the minister? Does the appellant have no rights whatsoever? What justice is there in appealing to the minister from a statement by his assessor or his department? Is this the just society? A colonel I know used to say, "I believe in democracy, but this is the way I want it done and, by God, this is the way it is going to be done." That is what the minister has said. Appeal? This is a mockery of appeal.
The hon. member for Edmonton West coined a phrase which I think is appropriate.
[Mr Ritchie.]
He called this provision a bureaucratic assault. It must have been officials of the minister's department who advised him. Surely they have enough trouble already with accusations of bureaucratic dictatorship being hurled at them in this house, by our constituents, and in the press. These officials are building up a bureaucratic dictatorship by taking away the right of the individual to appeal to the courts of our land. When speaking the other night on Bill C-155 I stated that the people of Canada can do without this type of legislation. We are losing more rights every day in this just society. I appeal to the minister to leave it as it was. We are quite satisfied that we have the right to appeal to the courts under our present system.
Under British justice this is the right of every individual in Canada.. There are very few acts which do not allow the right of appeal to the courts. There is one section of the Income Tax Act which states that an individual is guilty until he proves his innocence. There is also one clause in the Canada Pension Plan which does not allow the right of appeal. This is contrary to our system of British justice. We as members of parliament have shirked our responsibility in this regard. This responsibility must be taken away from the bureaucrats and given back to the house. It is not the responsibility of these commissions which the government has set up. I do not think it is necessary to name them. They are doing a good job under our instructions. We are the ones at fault, not them. The Canada Pension Plan states that the interpretation of that act is the sole responsibility of the commission. That is not justice. Although it was done for a reason at the time, I think it should be changed.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
The minister stated that judges of our courts would be appointed assessors. This is another responsibility that judges should not have. As one of my colleagues said a few moments ago, this will take away from their dignity as judges in our courts. It makes them a political tool of the government of the day, and judges do not like to be met with an accusation of political patronage. Under this legislation I can see circumstances arising when from time to time there will be accusations of political patronage, and I am quite sure the senior judges will frown on those who accept this type of work. I do not know what compulsion the minister can use to make judges accept it, but I am sure if it were left to their own decision they would
February 21, 1969	COMMONS
not want to act in this capacity knowing it would place them in an impossible position. I again appeal to the minister to withdraw this clause because it will do more harm than good.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, we are being asked to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. We are also being asked to remove the set prices prescribed in that act of $70 for grade cattle and $140 for purebred cattle and to give the minister, or whomsoever he may appoint, the right and power to set the maximum amounts of compensation payable. This amounts to ministerial discretion, and all hon. members know my feelings about giving such discretion to any minister. We should avoid doing so at all times, and I want to be on record as opposing that part of the bill.
Since it is evident that the bill will be passed, I would like to know what protection members of parliament and the taxpayers of Canada generally will have following the granting of this ministerial discretion. How and where will we find a list of the names and addresses of those people who are paid compensation? Will it be published in the Canada Gazette? It used to appear in the estimates under "Compensation to Breeders" in the health of animals section. There used to be a list of names and addresses of those who had been paid compensation in cases where the circumstances were not covered by the act and the regulations, but that has disappeared. I could not find such a list in the public accounts for 1967.
I suggest to the minister that it would not be a bad idea if the names and addresses, and the amounts involved, were published monthly and sent to all the breeder organizations so that the public may see what is going on and that nothing is kept from the view of the public. We are giving the minister the right to set the amount of compensation. It is only right that, we should know to whom he pays compensation.
There is one provision which appears in the estimates every year with the heading, "in circumstances not covered by the act". Some $8,000 was estimated under it last year. Maybe the minister would like to explain what that covers. I have an idea that it covers animals that die in transit or in accidents before the amount of compensation is arrived at, but I would like the minister to confirm this. Against my better judgment I shall agree to giving this discretionary power to the minister or whomsoever he may appoint, but it is
DEBATES	5815
Animal Contagious Diseases Act only fair to ask him what protection we and the taxpayers will have after granting him this right.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, at first glance this legislation would appear to affect only a relatively small number of people, and the minister and the government may be disposed to feel that because only a relatively small number of persons may be affected they are at liberty to take very unusual steps in the legislation. I point out that even if only a small number of farmers are affected this house has a responsibility to protect the inalienable rights of every citizen, and that any injustice perpetrated against even one person is something this house must attempt to guard against.
However, this legislation, as I understand it could affect a very large number of persons. I recall that on the prairies a few years ago, when we had an epidemic of foot and mouth disease, hundreds of farmers were required to have their cattle slaughtered and the question of compensation was a very live, controversial and bitter one. As I look at this bill I cannot help wondering whether if it were dealing with mining companies, oil companies or other large corporations, legislation of this type would be introduced by the government, because this legislation deprives certain Canadian citizens under certain circumstances of some of their basic, inalienable rights.
I think the minister is wise in taking out of the act the stipulated figures with respect to the compensation which will be paid. With inflation continuing at the rate it is, I do not think you can put in a statute now the maximum amount that will be paid for either grade or purebred cattle that may have to be destroyed next year, two years from now or five years from now. Unless you are going to amend the act every year, any table of set compensation would very rapidly become obsolete. Therefore the minister has to ask the house, and I think in this case properly, for the authority to recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that an order in council be passed setting forth what the maximum compensation will be.
However, Mr. Speaker, it should be remembered that what is happening is that the government, which is going to pay the compensation, is the one which by regulation will determine the compensation. That, by the very nature of things, is quite dictatorial. It cannot be prevented, but that is the situation. The government, which itself must pay the
Animal Contagious Diseases Act compensation, is going to say by order in council what that compensation will be, or at least the maximum amount for which it will be liable.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)
Properly speaking there must be a right of appeal. The appeal is to be made to an assessor, but the assessor is not a free agent. Under the legislation before us he is confined within the maximum that the government has set. So the government, which must pay compensation, is stating by order in council what the maximum compensation shall be. Then it appoints an assessor who is to hear the appeal but tells him that the figure which has been set is sacrosanct and that he dare not go beyond it. He dare not go beyond the maximum. By what moral or legal judgment does the cabinet decide that the maximum which they set is an inviolate figure? If there is to be an appeal, surely that appeal ought to be to someone who is in a position to say that the figure which the cabinet has set at some previous time is no longer adequate and that in the opinion of the assessor the particular animal being slaughtered is worth more than the amount set by the government in the order in council. The assessor should have the right to recommend any figure which he thinks is in keeping with the situation.
It makes a farce of the whole question of appeal to say that a farmer will have the right of appeal and then in the next breath say that the assessor wjio is to hear the appeal will be limited to making his judgment within a maximum set by the very government which will have to pay the compensation. If ever there was a case of a government wanting to be the judge, jury and prosecuting attorney all in one, surely this is it. Then I believe the final indignity is to state that the decision of the assessor on any appeal brought pursuant to this part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
I understand that my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) attempted to amend Bill C-155 when that bill was before us. His amendment was with reference to a clause which is applicable now in this bill, C-156. I cannot condemn in too strong terms the fact that the government would ask the house to write into the statute books a specific prohibition against the right of appeal to the courts. Surely this ought to be a basic right. As a matter of fact, some of us have fought for years to have established

February 21, 1969
as a principle of law in this country that any individual can sue the Crown without a fiat from the Minister of Justice or the Attorney General of a province. During the time I had the privilege of being associated with a provincial government we removed the requirement that a fiat had to be secured in order to sue the Crown. If in our present society governments must acquire more and more power, which is the situation in a society as complex and complicated as ours, then surely the citizen should have as a last resort the right to sue the Crown when he or she feels an injustice has been done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Instead of moving in that direction and removing the requirement that a fiat must be secured in order to sue the Crown, we are now asked to place on the statute books a specific prohibition against the right to sue the Crown. The government really is saying to a farmer who is affected by this legislation that his compensation will be set by the government, that he will be given the right to appeal but that right of appeal will be within the maximum limits set by the government. Then the government is saying that if he is not satisfied he does not have the ordinary recourse he would have in dealing with a private company of going to the courts and asking the courts to decide what is fair and equitable compensation for the loss he has suffered.
After all the years I have listened to Liberal speakers talk about the rights of the individual and tfie dangers of socialistic regimentation, they now bring down legislation telling the farmer that if he is so unfortunate as to have livestock that must be slaughtered or, in the case of Bill C-155, produce that cannot be sold, all he will be allowed is the privilege of appearing before an assessor who must hand down a figure in respect of compensation not higher than a maximum that fias been set by order in council on the recommendation of the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. McIntosh:: They took over when you were away.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if this is to be the just society, then God save this country from any more of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

February 21, 1969	COMMONS


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If we do not have a serious epidemic of livestock disease in this country not many people may be affected. But I want to remind hon. members that we are being asked today to set a very dangerous precedent, the precedent of putting on the statute books a provision which prohibits a Canadian citizen from the right to go to the courts. We are here saying that the maximum figure recommended by the minister and approved by his colleagues is the final arbitration even though the figure they may have set may have become completely obsolete and irrelevant in view of changing conditions. This is a dangerous step.
I suggest that this is dangerous and vicious legislation and that the government ought to reconsider it before it asks us to approve this measure. I once heard Aneurin Bevan say that democracy in Germany died by the headman's axe but that in Britain it was in danger of dying from anaemia. I am not speaking of Britain but I say that in this country, if we continue to allow provisions like this to be placed on the statute books, democracy can die inch by inch by taking away from the ordinary citizen his basic rights to the point where this country will be ruled by ministerial decree and bureaucratic regulations. If this is the government's idea of a just society, then the sooner the Canadian people become aware of it and speak out, the better. I appeal to the minister to either postpone this legislation or introduce an amendment removing the provision which denies a person affected the right to go to the courts. That is the very least that should be allowed. I would like to see them granted the right to go to court and I would go a little bit farther.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
From the minister's own point of view I think he would be better off in the final analysis to permit a farmer who is disgruntled and dissatisfied to have his case heard in open court rather than being settled by an assessor appointed by the minister and restricted to the maximum figures the minister in his wisdom or the lack thereof has set for the assessor. I hope the minister will seriously reconsider this matter. I hope he will not ask the house to pass the kind of provision to be found in this legislation. If he does and other ministers follow this practice, we will be weakening the whole basis of democratic government in this country.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, a number of members of the opposition, includ-
DEBATES	5817
Animal Contagious Diseases Act ing the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh), my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), my leader, and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) have addressed themselves to the legislation before us with specific reference to clause 2. The minister has had an opportunity on previous bills to make some kind of a response to the criticisms and appeals made by hon. members, all of whom have pointed to the serious dangers that lurk behind the provisions contained in this bill. I feel as strongly as other members about this matter but because they have pointed out the dangers clearly I see little point in repeating them at this stage.
It is my hope the minister will come from behind the curtains, get on his feet and explain why the government does not see fit to amend this legislation so we will not be in the position of legislating, as my leader and the hon. member for Swift-Current-Maple Creek put it, to prohibit citizens from having access to the courts, particularly since this matter involves property rights. My leader may have been a little facetious when he said the Liberal party seems to have become very much preoccupied with giving departments and other government bodies more and more authority, but in this case there seems to be a great deal of truth in that statement.
Over the years the Liberal party has created the impression of emphasizing the rights of individuals; yet it appears to be nonchalant about a clause such as the one contained in this bill. This is indeed surprising. It is even more surprising because of the fact that the bill is sponsored by a minister who is apparently the heir apparent to the late William Aberhart. The Liberal party has put great emphasis on the rights of individuals relative to the state. In view of this attitude there certainly is cause for complaint.
At this time I do not intend or want to make what essentially would be the same protests made by other hon. members, but I hope the minister will indicate why it is not possible to remove this provision so there will be no impingement or prohibition in respect of the right of a citizen to take a dispute to the courts. Is it so essential to the administration that we include in this bill a clause such as that contained in Bill C-156? We strongly object to the fact that a decision of an assessor will not be appealable to the courts.
There is another matter I have not heard mentioned. There is provision here that anyone who wishes to appeal the decision of an
5818	COMMONS DEBATES	February 21, 1969
Animal Contagious Diseases Act assessor to an appeal board must do so within three months. This strikes me as an unnecessary restriction. We realize there is some need for a restrictive clause, but in most instances of which I am aware statutes of limitation involve periods of six months or a year, and in some cases five years or more. The minister is asking for too much when he recommends to hon. members a clause which states that every appeal to an assessor shall be brought within three months of the date the owner receives notification of the decision. Why can this not be six months or a year?
The minister knows full well that during busy times of the year an individual may not find himself in a position to take some kind of formal legal action within a period of 90 days. It might be inconvenient to the government to have a longer period but the important thing is that justice should be done, and every citizen should have an ample opportunity to exercise his rights under the law. I think it is a little bit too restrictive to suggest that if an individual wants to appeal he must do so within 90 days. Let us also hear from the minister as to why it is difficult for him to envisage a longer period of time.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister the intention of this bill is to allow the government to pay greater compensation to those who have suffered a loss. I compliment the minister on this aspect of the amendment. He would have been better off had he put a percentage or some other kind of formula in the bill in respect of the value of animals, whether it be three years or five years from now. There should be some relation between the value and the market price in arriving at a reasonable figure for compensation. Under this bill t.he minister will be the judge, the jury, the lord high executioner and the paymaster. There undoubtedly will be some conflict as a result of the minister being all of these things.
I know a farmer in my area who raises purebred bulls. Whenever I go there to buy a bull he always wants a higher price than I am willing to pay. This man, if the bull or other animal were condemned, would probably want to appeal the decision of the Department of Agriculture, whatever it might be. While I might disagree with his judgment as to the value of the animal, I think he should have the right to appeal. I think it is a good thing to have the right of appeal within the department; but ultimately, if a farmer is not
[Mr. Schreyer.l
satisfied he should have the right of appeal to a court of law. I do not suppose many farmers would go to the Exchequer Court, for example, but as long as the right is there I believe the government would tend to be more circumspect with regard to the value placed upon carcasses which are disposed of. In this respect, 1 do not intend to imply there is anything wrong with the Minister of Agriculture, because I have a good deal of respect for him despite the fact he is a Liberal.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


An hon. Member:: He isn't really.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: That is right. I think the rights of people would be better protected if these things were put into writing so they knew exactly where they stood. Then, neither the government nor the farmer would be able to take unfair advantage of the act. The farmer would know he could appeal to an impartial tribunal, a judge, and he could ultimately take the matter to court and obtain a reasonable settlement if he could not do so in any other way. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will reconsider this matter.


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We would like to hear from the minister, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I must inform the house that, according to the rules, the minister cannot reply at this stage unless there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things I could say in defence of this bill if I were to try and reply to all the arguments and allegations that have been made by hon. members today. However, I want to be as charitable as I can, and in keeping with that spirit I would say that we have heard a great deal of argument about many things that are not in the bill. There are three clauses to the bill. The first clause deals with removing the statutory limit on the maximum amount that can be paid for animals that are slaughtered because they have contracted named diseases. The second clause gives the right to appeal the amount which the minister may decide is proper for compensation. That is all it does. The clause does not provide for anything but
February 21, 1969

an appeal in this respect. It is rather strange to hear my hon. friends argue how unjust this provision is, because at the present time and all through the years my hon. friends opposite were in office there was no right of appeal.


Harold Warren Danforth: How about the courts? There was always a right of appeal to them.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There was no right to appeal the amount of compensation to an assessor, a court or anyone else. My hon. friends know that. The third clause is concerned with the date of the coming into force of the measure. The reason the date is September 26 is that, in the event there are animals which show positive reaction to the named diseases, particularly tuberculosis and brucellosis, they will be disposed of without waiting and increasing the hazard involved in having the disease around the herd pending an increase in the amount paid by way of compensation. That is all there is in the bill. I think it is a useless debate to read into the bill a whole lot of other things that simply are not there.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read clause 14A (3).


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: With regard to the right of appeal on the amount of compensation, that primarily involves an appeal to an assessor. That is why this person is called an assessor. In Bill C-155, the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, we specifically and very carefully wrote in the provision that these assessors must be either judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada or judges of the superior courts of the provinces. This provision is there. It is very clear that the assessors will not be people other than those. The argument has been raised as to whether a person should have a right of appeal with regard to whether he is guilty or not guilty. That is not a question that arises at all. The only question is the amount of compensation that can be paid out of the public treasury. If that amount has been set by the minister somewhere lower than the maximum, then the farmer can appeal to the assessor to bring it up to the maximum or to a point higher. That is all that is involved.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Was that a slip of the tongue? The

Animal Contagious Diseases Act minister said, "Up to the maximum or something higher than the maximum."


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, something higher than had been designated by the minister.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I take it that the assessor cannot set any figure higher than the maximum which the minister has already recommended to his colleagues and which was put into an order in council?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is right. It is very nice to see the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) back in the house and participating in the debate. He usually makes a very eloquent argument, but usually for the wrong reasons and with the wrong conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That of course happened again today, because the hon. member tried to build his argument on the basis of something that had happened respecting foot and mouth disease in Saskatchewan in February of 1952. If he had taken the trouble to inform himself, or if his colleagues had done so-and I think they should have-concerning the amended part of section 12 of the Animal Congagious Diseases Act, he would have found that this part of the act applies to four named diseases only, and one of them is not foot and mouth disease. The diseases named in the act are glanders, dourine, brucellosis and tuberculosis. That is all. There is a completely different basis for determining the amount of compensation paid in respect of diseases like foot and mouth disease because you have to introduce a program for the complete eradication of all the animals exposed to the disease. That is not applicable to this part of the act.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister another question? I understand that this provision applies only to the diseases the minister has named. But am I not correct that the appeal procedure as set out in part II of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, Bill C-155, will apply to all appeals under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act? If not, what will be the basis upon which payment will be made for any disease other than those outlined here, such as foot and mouth disease or hog cholera?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This is the fallacy of my hon. friend's argument and proves the point I was
5820
February 21, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act making a few minutes ago, about hon. members dredging up everything they can think of with respect to this matter and trying to apply it to the three clauses of the bill. I could go into a great deal of detailed explanation as to how values are arrived at for other diseases. But to put it very briefly, under an eradication program market values are used. In some cases the carcass has no salvage value because it is destroyed completely. This is not the case, for example, with animals which do not have an active disease but in fact show a positive reaction to a test for brucellosis or tuberculosis after proper inspection by our inspectors at the slaughtering plants. The salvage value of those carcasses is as high as if they did not show a positive reaction at all. Over and above that is the compensation which we are setting out in this measure.
Therefore, the brief answer is that with regard to those animals which have no salvage value at all, the market value is set down by a formula that we have used, very satisfactorily I may say, for a long period of time. In this way, we have arrived at the value and compensation that should be paid.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the minister quite understood my question. With respect to these other diseases like foot and mouth disease or hog cholera, is there no right of appeal, or is the procedure for appeal as set out in this legislation to be applicable in the case of other diseases? Or is there no right of appeal with respect to them?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure about the right of appeal in those cases, but there is a completely different procedure. For example, a committee is set up consisting of somebody representing the department, the nominee of the person or persons involved, and someone neutral. This committee decides on the value of animals in the case where an eradication program is required because of contraction of a contagious disease.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why not in the case of these other diseases?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In many cases that is the procedure if a large number of animals is involved. However, what my hon. friend does not seem to realise is that there is a continuing program of testing throughout the country of

what appear to be healthy animals. Whenever we find any animals that show a positive reaction to the test they are taken out of the herd, and compensation is paid to the producer on the basis outlined. Up until this time, there has been no appeal from a decision of the minister or the department.
The question was asked why we put the phrase "with such modifications as circumstances require" in clause 2(3). As far as I understand it, this is the English translation of the latin phrase that is used, "mutatis mutandis". These words do not change the provisions of the compensation act but allow for differences in wording between the two acts. Thus, they are a link between the two acts. However, some differences have to be taken into account so far as administration is concerned.
A number of questions were asked about whether or not the amount of compensation would be high enough, and whether crossbreds and so on, should be included. As I said in the committee-I think it is well to repeat myself here-the maximum amount that can be paid by way of compensation over and above the salvage value of the carcass today is $70 for a grade animal and $140 for a purebred animal. A purebred is defined as an animal that has been registered or that is eligible to be registered, whether registered or not.
I am going to recommend to the Governor in Council that these values be changed to $120 for grade animals and $200 for purebred animals. This is a very substantial increase; in percentage terms it is in the neighbourhood of 70 per cent. The fact of the matter is that these statutory limits have not been changed for 11 years, since 1958. Therefore, we think there is some justification for changing them.
Notwithstanding that the amounts may be higher, because of the very successful program we have been carrying on for a number of years to eradicate these diseases, the total amount charged to the federal treasury will, in our view, be substantially less under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. Statistics bear out that the program has been very successful over a long period of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do not want to interrupt the minister's train of thought, but before he leaves that point I should like to ask him how it is possible to set a maximum figure when dealing with purebred livestock. At every fair one sees purebred livestock selling at very
February 21, 1969	COMMONS
fancy figures. Therefore, I would think that purebred livestock varies in value greatly, and I should like to know how it is possible to set a maximum figure. Is the assessor not to be allowed complete freedom, instead of some maximum being imposed? For example, the animal in question might be a prize bull that would fetch thousands of dollars; in such a case a maximum of $200 seems absurd.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This act is not intended to compensate at the kind of values that are sometimes put upon animals at auction sales. If anybody has a very valuable animal, such as the one described by the hon. member, it is usually insured. Certainly, insurance is available for such animals. That is one reason.
Another reason is that in some cases it is possible, through a reasonably satisfactory process, to arrive at a value for such animals. We take the position that there are so many exceptions to the rule in the process of arriving at the value of some of these animals that we need to set down a maximum so that everybody is treated equally and fairly.
I should also point out to the hon. member that the cost to the federal treasury is not simply the cost of the compensation paid to the farmer. A great deal of additional cost is involved in helping the farmer rid his farm of these diseases and to clean up his herd. This is of equal, indeed far greater, value to the farmer as the actual dollars paid to him in compensation. If we used market values or adopted some other means of doing away with the maximum amount of compensation, we would, it seems to me, be opening the door to a lot of litigation and expressions of opinion as to the value of animals. I do not mind this if those values are properly tested in the market place. But, of course, they cannot be tested. There is no way positively to test market value of an animal once it has become sick or has contracted one of these diseases. Therefore, we need to establish a maximum.
I might say to the hon. member that the point he makes has not proved to be a great problem so far as high priced animals are concerned because, in the first place, they are eligible for insurance and in most cases are insured. I do not think anybody could say that there is no way for producers to defend themselves in this kind of situation, which would be the case for lower priced or grade animals.


Harold Warren Danforth: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to ask the minister a question. I am
DEBATES	5821
Animal Contagious Diseases Act not sure that the assumption he has made is correct and I should like to ask for clarification. The minister chastised a previous speaker for dealing with hog cholera and foot and mouth disease. The minister indicated that these diseases were not relevant to subclauses (1), (2) and (3) of clause 2. Is it not a fact that the section of the act that we are amending, section 14, which is the appeal provision, is not restricted simply to brucellosis and t.b., but applies to the act in its entirety?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I will have an answer to that question in a moment. I think that when I made that statement I was talking about clause 1, which is the clause that removes the statutory maximum that is set down for the four diseases I named a few moments ago. The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had a lot to say about this question, but what he apparently does not understand is that we are not taking away anybody's rights. We are in fact granting a right of appeal which has never existed before. I find it hard to understand any of these arguments seeking to show we are taking something away when really we are extending the right of persons to appeal on a matter which involves a charge to the public treasury. Appellants would be questioning the minister's decision as to how much would be the proper compensation. In most cases it will only be the amount which will be the subject of an appeal, though there is a possibility of appeal in cases where no payment is to be made, and where a more favourable ruling is sought. But in most cases the question of substance will be the opinion of the assessor as to whether or not, within the minima and maxima laid down in the regulations, the amount was fair.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I cannot understand how the hon. member can argue from both sides of the fence at the same time. At one point he told us that judges of the Exchequer Court and of the Superior Courts of the provinces should not be involved at all.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Not as
assessors.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He said there had been a great public outcry about these judges becoming involved in extra-curricular activities.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Extrajudicial.
February 21, 1989

Animal Contagious Diseases Act


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: All right; whatever the word was. Immediately after saying that, he told us these cases should be appealable to the courts, where the very same men would be seated.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: But not as
assessors.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, what would the courts be doing, if not assessing the amount of compensation, since compensation is the only question appealable? You see the difficulty about trying to satisfy all the objections of the other side, Mr. Speaker, when one of its spokesmen contradicts even himself within two minutes?


Mr. Lamberi (Edmonion West):: No, I did
not.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I believe I have answered all the questions hon. members have asked me. There were one or two further questions, though. The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) asked whether an assessor could award more than the maximum. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) asked that question too.
We are now taking out of the legislation the statutory limits of $70 and $140 respectively and we are providing that these amounts shall be determined by order in council. In other words, parliament is saying in this session, and has been saying in 1958 and on all those other occasions when this act has been before it, that there should be a certain maxima. If we were now to say there could be an appeal to an assessor with no limit on the amount which could be awarded, then that assessor would be making law. Parliament has decided over the last 30 years that in the interests of the taxpayer and of the public treasury limits should be placed on the compensation which can be paid in connection with these disease eradication programs.
The remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) were, of course, not applicable to this bill at all. No man is guilty or innocent in this context. The only thing appealable is the amount of compensation.
The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), having heard the arguments to which I have just referred, wanted to know about the right of the taxpayers who provide money for the public treasury out of which this compensation is paid. This is a legitimate submission because, after all, we do bear responsibility for setting up the kind of rules which ensure that we are handling the public funds judiciously. Every member knows we must have

rules and regulations to avoid excessive claims tantamount to raids on the public treasury. We are conscious of this need. The hon. member wanted a list of those who have been paid compensation. Well, the names are not secret. It would cost quite a lot of money to produce such a list, because in some years it would be very long, but we are not holding back any of this information. As for the other two or three points to which he referred, having to do with the blue book of estimates, I think it would be better if I waited to discuss them until the estimates are before the standing committee.
I have tried to answer all the questions which have been raised. I am glad many hon. members agree that instead of imposing statutory limits the Governor in Council should set them from time to time, keeping in mind the movement of the market.
I also believe hon. members will agree, on reflection, that giving the right to appeal the amount of compensation for the first time is a great step forward. The fact that the assessors who will hear the appeals will be judges of the Exchequer Court or of the Superior Courts of the provinces is a guarantee that the procedures under which appeals will be heard will be right and proper. I submit that with all these things written into one short piece of legislation hon. members will, on reflection, want to pass the bill quickly because it will certainly be of great benefit to those who are unfortunate enough to find their herds struck down by these diseases.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister a question? The one thing he did not deal with at all was why he found it necessary to write into Bill C-155, and make applicable to Bill C-156, a specific prohibition against the right of appeal to the courts.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I do not mind explaining things twice, or even three times, but I did explain this in detail in committee, and the evidence is available to the hon. member.
I do not know whether he has had the time to read it, but he will find it in reports Nos. 12, 13 and 14, all the way up to 19. Again, when an amendment was moved at the report stage of the bill I gave another detailed explanation why it had been done. Since the house has reached a decision with regard to Bill C-155, I doubt whether I should repeat all the reasons I gave, though they are readily available to the hon. member if he would like to read the evidence given before the
February 21, 1969	COMMONS
committee, or consult the applicable copy of Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not talking about Bill C-155 but about Bill C-156 which specifically says, in clause 3:
14A (3) The provisions of part II of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act with such modifications as circumstances require apply to appeals brought under this act.
So, I am not discussing Bill C-155. I am talking about the application to the bill now before the house of a clause in Bill C-155 which becomes law under the measure we are now discussing.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I gave that explanation, too. At the outset I said that mutatis mutandis there are some changes which may be necessary in the regulations as applied to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act; that they would be slightly different in their application to the pesticide residue legislation but that the general procedure regarding the right to appeal would be the same in both cases. The general procedure in respect of the right of appeal will be the same under both acts.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Although the minister tried to bring in a Latin phrase, surely he means that clause 13(3) of Bill C-155 which reads,
The decision of the Assessor of any appeal brought pursuant to this Part is final and conclusive and not subject to appeal to or review by any court.
applies to the bill before the house at the present time.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The answer is, yes.. My officials and I have explained repeatedly why that provision has been included in Bill C-155.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have heard no explanation from the minister that satisfies me. I shall vote against the bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am aware the hon. member has not heard the explanation. I think he will agree that three or four explanations are sufficient. I have made many explanations in committee and in this house with respect to Bill C-155 previous to this afternoon.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: The minister is being sarcastic.
DEBATES	5823
Animal Contagious Diseases Act


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking in this debate but I am concerned about the implications of this bill. Potentially, many of my constituents may be affected. The chief difficulty here is that, apparently, members on the government side have one philosophy and those on the opposition another. The government's attitude seems to be that, with its officials, it knows what is best for the individual.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is the mandate.


John Angus MacLean: Originally the act gave the minister power to have animals suffering from contagious diseases slaughtered. Compensation was to be paid with respect to those animals, as set by order in council. Nevertheless, if a farmer feels that as a result of the decision of the official appointed by the government he is not getting a fair shake, that the assessment is too low, he may appeal but may not take the appeal further than the assessor. The normal rights of the individual are being denied in this bill. The individual cannot appeal to the courts-I see the minister shaking his head.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The assessors will be judges. That is spelled out in the act.


John Angus MacLean: That is completely beside the point. Those judges are not acting as judges but as assessors. They have been appointed by the government to assess. We are not complaining about the individuals who may be appointed to act as assessors, I wish to make that clear. Our complaint is that judges will act in the capacity of assessors according to the regulations set out under the act. That is a major objection we have to this bill. I do not think the minister intended to leave a wrong impression, but the impression he left with me was that the provisions of this bill only apply to animals slaughtered under certain circumstances. I understood them to apply to all animals slaughtered under the authority of the act we are amending. The list of diseases governed by the act is to be found in section 2(d), which reads as follows:
'Infectious or contagious disease' includes, in addition to other diseases generally so designated, glanders, farcy, maladie du coit, pleuro-pneumonia contagiosa, foot and mouth disease, rinderpest, anthrax, Texas fever, hog cholera, swine plague, mange, scab, rabies, tuberculosis-
And so on. Do not the provisions of this bill apply to all those diseases? I am not suggesting for one moment that most of the time
February 21, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act assessments would not be made conscientiously, to everyone's satisfaction. Nevertheless, if an individual feels he has been hard done by he cannot appeal to the courts, because the bill does not give him the right to do so. Surely, that provision is not part of a just society.


Edward Richard Schreyer: May I ask the minister a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I must inform the house that we are not sitting as a committee of the whole house. The house is beginning to act as if it were in committee. I shall permit the hon. member to ask one last question of the minister.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Considering what the hon. member for Mal-peque (Mr. MacLean) said a few moments ago with respect to diseases coming under the provisions of this bill, would the minister clarify what he said a few moments ago. I believe he said that foot and mouth disease and several other animal diseases were not included in the provisions of this bill.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the section we are amending in the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, section 12-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not section 14?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We are amending sections 12 and 14. If the hon. member is referring to appeals and statutory limits with respect to compensation under clause 12, may I point out that that clause does not deal with diseases other than the four I named, glanders, tuberculosis, brucellosis and dourine.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know the minister does not intend to mislead the house but may I point out that section 14(3) says:
The provisions of Part XI of the Pesticide Residue Compensation Act, with such modifications as circumstances require, apply to appeals brought under this Act.
Appeals under this part are governed by the entire act, and the act deals with all those diseases the hon. member from Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) mentioned a few moments ago. If the minister will look at Bill C-155, and at clause 13 he will see these words:
(1) Upon the hearing of an appeal brought pursuant to this Part, the Assessor may-
(b) subject to any maximum amount of compensation prescribed pursuant to this Act and

applicable to the loss in respect of which the appeal is brought, vary the decision of the Minister,-[DOT]
That applies to all diseases.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) should not get so exicit-ed, because I do not think he understood the question. The question was, I believe, whether compensation under the amendments to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act contained in Bill C-156 apply to foot and mouth disease. The answer is that in so far as maximum amounts of compensation are concerned, they do not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the minister replied to my question dealing with this matter he said in so many words that I ought to inform myself of the contents of the bill. I point out that I was dealing only with the appeal procedure under section 14(l)(a). My contention was that the appeal procedure should apply to all animal diseases defined under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act. The minister has now admitted in so many words that that is the case. This appeal procedure would apply to farmers whose cattle were infected with foot and mouth disease or whose hogs were infected with hog cholera.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Everybody is out of order, Mr. Speaker, so I may as well be too. Section 14 of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act deals with specific diseases. Where it states compensation is payable in respect of cattle, I suppose an argument can be made. I believe Section 14A applies to diseases contained in that class. I will have the answer very shortly.


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


An hon. Member:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the third time and passed.



PEST CONTROL


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: that Bill C-157, to regulate products used for the control of pests and the organic
February 21, 1969	COMMONS
functions of plants and animals, be read the third time and passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the minister not going to make a speech?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am not sure I ought to say anything regarding Bill C-157 because the new rules provide for detailed explanation of every clause in the committee. I think all hon. members realize that because of the limitation of time it was necessary to divide the work among standing committees so they could meet concurrently. That, Mr. Speaker, was the purpose of the detailed clause by clause study of these bills in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. It would be redundant to repeat these detailed explanations as they are contained in the reports available to all members.
The appeal procedure under the bill with which we have just finished dealing applies to all programs on which compensation is paid. All the diseases listed do not of necessity have slaughter programs attached to them. With regard to compensation, the right of appeal is applicable to all three bills.
As far as Bill C-157 is concerned, I hope there will be time for me to answer questions.
I do not think it necessary to cover ground already well covered in the committee reports.


Harold Warren Danforth: Bill C-157 is another in a series of bills respecting regulations with regard to the agriculture industry. This particular bill also deals with an allied industry, the chemical industry in connection with pesticides manufactured by it and applied to products grown in Canada. This measure provides an even greater indication of the arbitrary powers being taken by this government.
I was happy to hear the minister, in his short address, explain the workings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture. He said we had time to study this bill clause by clause. Although the theory of such a standing committee may be good, the operation of it leaves much to be desired.
There are two large industries, the chemical industry and the agriculture industry, influenced by the regulations in this legislation. This bill intrudes on the normal operation of these industries. When the committee was about to study this bill clause by clause, I was shocked to learn the government did not intend to call witnesses from these industries to present their opinions as to whether or not,
DEBATES	5825
Animal Contagious Diseases Act the bill was advantageous and to express opinions on the various clauses of this bill. Although both these industries were to be regulated and regimented, neither were going to be given the opportunity to make representations. It was only after a great deal of discussion that the chemical industry was permitted to make representations.
The evidence provided by the representatives of the chemical industry was very informative and formed the basis for one minor amendment to the bill. It was an historic feat to have even one amendment accepted in committee which was not produced by the government. The provisions of this bill deal with most facets of the chemicals involved, that is, the composition, registration, packaging, storage, transportation, sale, utilization and a strict examination of their effects. We must be very careful when intruding to this extent on the companies involved. We must not be too cumbersome in granting adequate protection to the users of the products involved. We must not make it impossible for these two industries to take advantage of the newest developments.
This bill gives more rights to an inspector of the government than are given to an officer of the R.C.M.P. The fact that an inspector is a government employee and shows his identification, gives him the right to go into any building or property and require every person to assist him in his inspection. He is given the right to demand all books and papers he may deem necessary. In essence, an inspector is given all the powers of an officer of the law. He can take upon himself the power of controlling the distribution of such chemicals. As a matter of fact, he can require companies to cease the manufacture of a chemical. He can stop the transportation of it, or the utilization of it. He can impound all quantities wherever they are found on his assertion that they do not meet the requirements of this bill in respect of labelling, storage, transportation, or usage, or on the ground that the chemical may cause some danger either directly or residually to the food utilized for human consumption.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
Absolute power is granted to an individual to intrude in the normal operations of two industries. Inspectors will operate under the regulations made under this bill, but those regulations are not spelled out. They are merely stated to be such regulations as may be prescribed., I object to these agricultural bills which do not make provision for an
February 21, 1969

Animal Contagious Diseases Act appeal to a court after an assessor has made a determination. It is left arbitrarily in the hands of a single inspector to stop the normal business of two industries.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is even worse than that. A company may spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on the preparation of a chemical specifically designed to aid agriculture. Under this legislation, the Company must apply to the government for registration before it can dispose, sell, transport or package the chemical for commercial use. In the standing committee, we heard evidence that sometimes it takes months before a determination is made by the department as to whether or not registration should be granted. With respect to the registration of a new chemical, it is quite possible that it will take weeks or months to obtain the necessary information from the various laboratories and testing fields. We have discovered that registration may be held up because of a difference of opinion between two government departments, the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Agriculture.
This bill is another example of government intrusion into business under the guise of benefiting the public. The intent is good, and we in the Official Opposition in no way say that the welfare of the people of Canada should not be protected to the nlh degree. This is necessary but when arbitrary powers are given to individuals, surely equal powers of review are necessary.
Ini the standing committee we heard from officials of the department that the registration of chemicals could take a matter of days, and that speed was essential when dealing with chemicals that are used on a seasonal basis. But when representatives of the industry appeared before the committee they said it sometimes was not a matter of days but of months, and in fact on occasion a matter of years before a decision could be reached. People engaged in agriculture cannot wait for years. In many instances they cannot wait for months. Farmers must have chemicals to deal with specific problems as they arise or else suffer crop failures.
I feel that when a product has been refused registration, the company concerned should have the right of direct and fast appeal. It should have the right of direct appeal to a minister or to the department when it feels there has been undue delay in granting registration. A company should have a right to

appeal when there has been seizure or detention of a product on the decision of a single inspector. It should have a right to appeal against a decision respecting packaging, labelling and advertising when such decision has stopped the normal distribution of the product. A company should have a right to appeal when the government contends that an indictable offence has been committed by one of its agents or employees.
When representatives of the industry appeared before the standing committee the government relented and introduced an amendment to the bill granting the right of appeal. But then, as the government does in so many cases, it added the rider "subject to such regulations as may be prescribed." In my considered view, this killed the request made on behalf of the industry. I am concerned about this legislation brought before us under the guise of being of direct benefit to agriculture because it has become so cumbered with regulations, and so one-sided against industry. I feel the good intentions which gave rise to it have been nullified. I have great hesitation in supporting the bill, although I do believe that the primary intent was good.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. It being four o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions, and public bills.


Mr. Bigg:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I be recognized as calling it four o'clock so that I can be the next to speak on Bill C-157.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-7, respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waierloo) moved:: That clause 1 of the said bill be deleted.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of the new procedure we adopted is that by giving second reading to a bill and letting it go to committee we can examine the
February 21, 1969

implications of the bill; we can question witnesses in the committee, and we can get a fuller appreciation of what is involved in the bill itself. It is because this bill has received such a scrutiny in committee, and because of the evidence that was presented, that we in this party have moved this amendment.
I should like to commence my intervention in this debate by referring to volume 18 of the minutes of the proceedings and evidence of the Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs Committee, page 989, where the position of the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation is put forward:
o (4:00 p.m.)
The request that we are making, sir, is for an increase in our authorized capital in each company in order to allow for continuing growth. There has been no increase in the authorized capital of either company for many years. The last increase in authorized capital of the Canada Trust Company was, indeed, in 1899. The last increase in the authorized capital of the Huron and Erie was in 1919.
There are a number of implications flowing from that statement. I am not sure what the authorized capital was in 1919 when the change was made, but at the moment their authorized capital is $10 million so presumably it was something less than that. In a period of 48 years these companies have not found it necessary to come to parliament for permission to have their authorized capital increased. They have been able to operate pretty much on their own and make their own decisions during that period. Now, they are requesting an increase in authorized capital double what they have.
Although I would not presume to say this increase would permit these corporations to go for another 48 years before coming to parliament, as they are at the moment, one could make a very strong presumption that it will be a long time before we have another opportunity to examine this particular type of request. My feeling is not that some time in the future this company should not be permitted an increase in its authorized capital. My argument is that at this moment, at a time when everyone is calling for great restraint, the restraint should be applied to all sectors of the economy both public and private. I suggest that in this particular case the increase in authorized capital should not be granted.
One could also question the position into which these companies have put themselves by asking for this increase in authorized capital. From the evidence at my disposal, it
Private Bills
would seem their request does not result from the fact they ran short of funds in the normal course of their business but because they used some of their authorized capital for the purchase of other companies. I might add that if the sponsor of this bill feels at any time he has some information he would like to bring to my attention as the debate proceeds, I would be more than happy to accept any intervention to clarify some of these points. Perhaps we could have a more meaningful debate in that way.


An hon. Member:: He is a Rhodes scholar.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of order; as is well known in this chamber the purpose of having a committee procedure is that an opportunity may be provided for hon. members to obtain information about the measures. I do not see why, at this late date, we should have to repair the deficiencies in my hon. friend's presentation.


An hon. Member:: You are a great sponsor of a bill. I thought you were a Rhodes scholar and had a general knowledge.


Max Saltsman: This is typical of the people who sponsor bills in this house. They have no intention of providing information or of justifying their position. They must want to sluff off these requests and get the bill through as quickly as possible. On the other hand, we feel that examination is necessary. We have obviously scrutinized this bill and questioned the witnesses who appeared before us. We have obtained some of the information we require and are making some points about it. The suggestion I made to the sponsor was that we were interested in having a meaningful debate. We are not interested in having the sponsor sit there like a dummy. If the sponsor has some suggestions to make in respect of points which would make this debate more meaningful, we are reasonable people over here and are quite willing to listen. What we are suggesting is that he may be able to give us some valid reason or significant arguments concerning why the report of the committee should be accepted and why this bill should be passed. He does not seem to have any intention of doing this at the moment.


Mr, Blair:: On a question of order, Mr. Speaker, the issue which has been placed before this house by my friend, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), is that the report should not be accepted. I submit it is for him to make a case if he can for this
5828

February 21, 1969
Private Bills
proposition. It really is quite out of order, I suggest, for him to try to make his case by addressing a number of rhetorical questions to me or to any other hon. member. I am interested in hearing what if any questions he has.


Max Saltsman: We are quite prepared to make our case. In the light of the considerable erudition of the sponsor, and his obvious interest in the welfare of this bill, I was hoping he might be prepared to accept the opportunity to make this debate more effective by participating in it. However, since he has indicated he has no intention of participating in this debate, beyond perhaps interrupting those speakers who wish to make their points, I will continue with my argument.
An interesting comment on this situation appears in the Financial Post of February 8, 1969 in a column headed "Annual Report". It reads:
Huron & Erie Mortgage Corp., London, Ontario, expects a "modest improvement in 1969".
The right hand column of the article reads:
Huron has applied for government approval to increase its authorized capital. Following the issuance of 911,856 for the acquisitions made during 1968, there is virtually no unissued capital, which is "not a good position for any growing company," Taylor said.
I think Mr. Taylor is the president of the company. So, in effect it would appear that Huron and Erie having used its available resources to buy out another company now finds itself short of authorized capital to continue its operations. One question which arises is how valid is this kind of an argument. Are we to allow authorized capital so that Huron and Erie can buy out everybody else? This would seem to be the point. They have arrived at this position because they made a corporate decision to expand rather than make the money at their disposal available for mortgages.
We are not being dogmatic about the question of size. If someone can demonstrate to me that the question of size is important and that Huron and Erie getting larger by buying up other companies will improve our economy or confer some benefits upon our people, then I have no objection to this. But what is the situation? Is Huron and Erie offering advantages to the people who go to Huron and Erie because the corporation has become bigger? I do not think so. Is this company lowering interest rates because it is bigger as

a result of these recent acquisitions? I do not think that is the case.
The sole purpose of this bill seems to be to increase the profitability and powerfulness of this particular corporation in the market place. I do not really believe we are here to do this kind of a deed on their behalf, particularly when the only advantage would seem to accrue to the stockholders of the company.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
There is an interesting comment made on this question of conglomerates and high organization by the management of the Great West Life Insurance Company of Winnipeg. This appeared in the Globe and. Mail-


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I fully appreciate the difficulty my hon. friend faces in opposing the increase in the capitalization of a company which is devoting 85 per cent of its assets to mortgages on houses and more particularly because it operates in his own area. He might have to explain to his constituents why he is taking this stand. I must say that-


Max Saltsman: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There is no point of order here.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I did not have an opportunity to reach my point of order, Mr. Speaker, but I will do so with your permission. The hon. member has referred to the conglomerates of Great West Life. This matter is not involved in the bill before us.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to rise on a point of order. With all due respect for your perseverance in maintaining order during the debate, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) has now for the fifth time during this debate raised spurious points of order. I think we should try to suppress him, particularly if he does not wish to make any formal speech.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) for his intervention. I agree that some of these points of order are irrelevant, but all the remarks of the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton have been irrelevant, particularly the last remark concerning how I am going to have to explain this matter to the people of Waterloo. Of course, that is what I am here to explain.
February 21, 1969


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I should like the hon. member to restrict his remarks to the motion before us, which he moved. He has moved that clause 1 be deleted from this bill. This clause deals with an increase in the capitalization of the corporation in order to have additional capital available. That is the only motion before the house.


Max Saltsman: I appreciate your vigilance and your injunction, Mr. Speaker, but, with the greatest respect, if you feel I cannot make remarks regarding the comments directed toward me by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) in respect of the general debate now taking place, I should like to appeal to you on a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has made a very serious charge, and it is a charge that should be answered. It is his privilege to say anything he wishes whether or not it is correct. However, I feel that the people of my riding would be very interested to know how fallacious his proposition is.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton asked me how I would explain, or perhaps how anyone would explain, this position of depriving this great benefactor of the public access to public funds in view of the fact it places 85 per cent of its funds in home mortgages. I am surprised that a man of his talent and knowledge would even ask this kind of a question, because he knows that the saving of money does not depend on the Huron and Erie Trust Company. This saving is made by the Canadian people. The expenditure of money in this society does not take place as a result of the beneficence of any particular trust company either. This money is going to be spent in one way or another, just as it will be saved in one way or another. What is important is how it is going to be spent, and that is the real point of this debate.
Is this money to be collected by a trust company which puts its money into areas where it will make the most profit without regard for social consequence? Is it to be collected by a public agency, which is the way we would like to see it done, which would be concerned about the almost three quarters of all Canadians who cannot afford their own homes? It might be possible for them to own homes if this money were collected in any other place than on the private marketplace. The private marketplace has its own terms of reference. Its objective is to make the greatest profit possible. This is the 29180-3701
Private Bills
kind of society in which we live and with which we disagree.
There is nothing to say that this kind of thing has to go on forever or that most of our people have to have their housing needs remain unsatisfied because they do not earn enough money to qualify for a mortgage. The point of the argument is, therefore, that I am working hard on behalf of these people of the Waterloo riding. They call on me often to tell me that they do not have homes in which to live. The wealthy do not have any problems. If you want to build a $60,000, $70,000 or $75,000 home, there is no shortage in Waterloo. If you earn $5,000, $6,000 or, in many cases, $4,000 and you want to build a house you cannot do so because the marketplace is not organized to serve your needs.
What we in this party are concerned about is to have some changes made in the way the savings are accumulated and allocated in order that people at the medium income level have the opportunity to obtain homes. I believe that every Canadian is entitled to this opportunity as a right. The Huron and Erie mortgage company has shown it is obviously far more interested in expansion and acquisition than anything else. These were not sick companies it was buying, these were healthy companies. This corporation is more interested in using its own money for its own aggrandizement than making money available for housing mortgages. I am sure the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton would have difficulty in dealing with that argument, and I notice he is sitting quietly.
At page 991 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs we find that Mr. Taylor, the President of the company was asked this question by Mr. Portelance:
Mr. Chairman, the question asked by Mr. Blair a while ago was: "What interest rate did the company concerned charge on loans for dwellings or low-cost housing?" Could somebody answer that question?
Some consternation broke out, and we finally got this reply from Mr. Taylor:
Our prime rate at the present time, I am sorry to say, sir, is 91 per cent.
Let me say that we are sorry too, Mr. Taylor. He went on to say:
I say that because high interest rates present just as much of a problem to us as they do to the rest of the country. We simply operate on a spread between the rate that we pay on demand and term money and the rate at which we lend. We are lending as I said today at 91 per cent.

February 21, 1SG9
Private Bills
The other side of the coin is that we are borrowing at the highest rate we have ever paid for money. We are paying 72 per cent on 5 year debentures. That is a spread of 12 per cent and in our costing 12 per cent is virtually a break even point.
Let me digress for a moment to make the observation that this is the point at which one asks, if they are not making any money how do they manage? Perhaps the answer is the important thing is not the profit, it is the turnover.
Mr. Taylor went on to state:
We are making about 25 cents on a $100 debenture today on the mix because we are paying 7J, 7J and 72 per cent depending on the maturity, whether it is one year, two, three, four or five. The spread is extremely narrow-
Despite this very narrow spread, if we take a look at the record of January 29-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could have the indulgence of the house to continue my remarks for a few minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: I am
sorry, I heard someone say "no".


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the hon. member for Grenville-Carle ton (Mr. Blair) would rise to answer the extremely valid and well thought out points put forward by my colleague the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). Apparently they went over his head or he feels they are not worthy of response.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could save me from these interruptions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Blair) on a point of order.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might even be a question of personal privilege. It will have been observed by
[Mr. Saltsman. 1
every hon. member here that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) jumped to his feet immediately the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) sat down, and I had no opportunity to consider rising. But I am looking forward to the weak argument of the hon. member for Waterloo perhaps being advanced somewhat by the hon. member for Skeena. It might then be worthy of reply.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I am now speaking to the motion or should deal with the question of privilege or point of order, whatever it was, that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) raised. I noticed that between the time he raised the point of order and the time he sat down there was a change of personnel in the chair. But even if you, Mr. Speaker, with your prescience, foresight and incisiveness, had paid full attention to the matter, you would have come to the conclusion that there was no point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I know that the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is never out of order, so he may continue with his speech.


Frank Howard: Mr, Speaker, an observation of that sort, however kind and generous to me, casts some doubt upon my opinion of Your Honour. Methinks you are mistaken. The bill relating to the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation is the matter before the house. There are one or two things I wish to say in connection with this corporation. Although they have been said before, I think it is necessary to reiterate them because they deal with the substance of the bill and the substance of a great deal of misunderstanding that arose in the committee as well as in the minds of many who have read the evidence upon which the report of the committee was founded.
The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation has at the moment an authorized capital of $10 million divided into five million shares of $2 each. It seeks, in effect, to double the share capital and the number of shares, but retain the par value of the shares and be in a position to raise, by reason of the additional sale of its share capital presumably, another $10 million. As I understand the situation, nearly all the authorized shares of the company have now been distributed and are outstanding.
There is, as was pointed out in the committee, a relationship between the amount of money a mortgage company can lend and the
February 21, 1969

amount of money that it has in the treasury, or the amount of its share capital, plus the surplus. I did not find out, and I doubt very much whether this matter was gone into in the committee, what the surplus position of the company might be. There is no reference to it that I can find. I have looked at the trust and loan companies financial survey of industrials. This survey covers the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation and lists the consolidated balance sheet, but only the main items. It is difficult for me to pull out from that what the surplus of a company might be. It could be listed under another name, or it may be divided and put into other accounts or other sorts of funds., Therefore, I do not know what the surplus figure is. In any event, there is a ratio of 15 to 1 in terms of the lending of money, related to the amount of share capital plus the surplus. I assume this means, speaking in very small numbers and only by way of illustration, that for every $100 the company has as a result of the sale of shares, it will be able to lend $1,500 for mortgages, as a maximum.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Borrow.


Frank Howard: It would be able to lend $1,500, not from its capital moneys but from money it had received on deposit or had borrowed. I see the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton shaking his head. I do not know whether he is shaking it at me, indicating disagreement with what I am saying, or at his cabinet colleagues on the front bench who are speaking with him. I am at a bit of a loss to know what he means.


Duncan Gordon Blair: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt, but I think if my hon. friend would look at the statute more closely he would find that the ratio of 15 to 1 governs the borrowings that a corporation of this type might make, out of which borrowings it then has a fund from which it can make loans to the public.


Frank Howard: I may have put it the wrong way around. Presumably the corporation is going to put all its borrowings out again. That is the theory behind the operation of this kind of corporation, namely, to keep your money in circulation. If it is more correct to say, in the jargon of the legal and accounting professions, that it can borrow 15 times more than is borrowed from it, I am content to put it that way. However, what I was getting at is that the ratio of 15 to 1 is permitted by order in council. There is a statutory amount beyond which the corporation cannot go after receiving permission
Private Bills
from the Treasury Board, the government or an agency of government. This permission has already been given. At this point, I should like to read from the evidence given by Mr. Humphrys, the Superintendent of Insurance, to the committee on January 21. His evidence was on this very point, and I should like to put his words on the record because they may help to clarify my argument.
Mr. Humphrys, in reply to a question, said:
The multiple for trust companies is 12J times the capital and surplus, but it may be increased to 15 times subject to approval by the Treasury Board. For mortgage loan companies the limit stated in the law is four times, but this may be also increased 15 times subject to application by the company and approval by the Treasury Board. Both of these companies-
He was referring to Canada Trust and Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.
-had their ratio approved at 15 times which is the maximum permissible under the law.
I understand that a proposition is being put forward and is being looked upon very favourably by the government that this 15 to 1 ratio be increased to 20 to 1. If this is the case, the company will automatically be in a better position so far as its borrowings and subsequent lendings are concerned. But even on the basis of a ratio of 15 to 1, the corporation, with the expectation of raising an additional $10 million through the sale of shares, will be able to increase its potential borrowing position and, consequently, its potential lending position by an additional $150 million.
If this is the sort of money the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was talking about being pumped into the mortgage lending field, it is very interesting and gratifying to note that it is the case. If the ratio is increased to 20 to 1, which I am told is quite possible, the amount would be increased even more and there would be a couple of hundred million dollars at least in additional money available for the company to borrow and, subsequently, to lend. The $150 million extra' that one can assume, on the basis of the surface presentation of the company, would be available for mortgages will not be available at all. The company said this, as reported in the proceedings of the committee at page 1001, as a result of a question put to Mr. Taylor, the chairman of the board and president of the company, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gray).
Private Bills

February 21, 1969
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As reported at page 1001 of the committee report a question was put to Mr. Taylor, the chairman of the board and president of the company, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.
Therefore, if these bills are accepted by parliament they will have the effect of providing a further $60 million to your companies to lend to individuals for single family dwellings?
To which Mr. Taylor replied:
Yes, sir.
Then, he went on to qualify his answer. He drew the distinction that the whole $60 million that they hoped to have available would not be for single family dwellings because they also intended to allot some money to multiple units, in the ratio of 70-30 per cent. I think we are entitled to go further into the question of the availability of mortgage money. If I may digress for a moment I should like briefly to relate an experience that I had some years ago when I was member of the provincial legislative assembly for the provincial constituency of Skeena. At the time there was great concern in my home community of Terrace and in other communities in that area, at the lack of mortgage funds available to build or acquire a home. On one occasion I was in Vancouver and visited the offices of three or four trust, mortgage and loan companies. I spoke to various officers of those companies. I do not know whether the Huron and Erie was one of the companies because I cannot remember the names, but they were all large, well established companies known across Canada.
I asked the officials of all of these companies what were the prospects of money being made available in communities such as Terrace, Prince Rupert and Smithers, these smaller, out of the way communities far removed from metropolitan areas of the nation. The officials of these companies gave me, in different terms and tones, the same answer. In effect, they said: "We can't be bothered because we are doing quite well in the city of Vancouver. We have enough business right here and don't have to go out of town to find opportunities to lend money".
In other words, they were not concerned. It was tough that these people lived 500 or a
1,000	miles out in the centre of the province but these corporations just could not concern tjiemselves about that. I mention that as an aside because reference is made in the committee proceedings to the availability of mort-:gage funds in rural areas. As reported at
:
pages 1004 and 1005 the officials of the company were asked questions on this point by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie).
I cannot deal with these answers in detail because they would take too long to read, but the gist of the answers given by Mr. Taylor is that there is slightly more money coming in from what he called western Canada, money that is being lent in the Toronto and Montreal areas, to meet the demand there.
The hon. member for Dauphin asked him a question that I think is worth setting on the record. It is answers to questions like this that put us in the position of doubting whether or not we are doing the correct thing by giving this bill immediate passage. If at the end of this hour the bill has not passed, I am sure the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), and those like him who are responsible and reasonable, will not go running round the country levelling the accusations he made earlier against the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), accusations that are unfounded.
I am sure that the hon. member will not make the false accusation that we are opposed to more money being made available for mortgages, because we are not. But we are seriously concerned about some of the answers given in the committee proceedings, and this is why I want to put them on record. The hon. member for Dauphin asked this very important question of Mr. Taylor:
Is there any conscious effort

That is to say, a deliberateness, not something accidental.
-on the part of your company to attempt to balance your regions? Do you attempt to lend back roughly what you take out of a region or is this impractical?
Mr. Taylor did not say anything about the practicality of this. He simply said:
No, I cannot say that we have done that, sir, over the years.
He then went into tjie history of the matter and said that in the early days most of their money was lent in the area of the Regina plains; that most of the money came from south western Ontario. Incidentally, in the early thirties most of the foreclosures were made by the same companies, Canada Trust and Huron and Erie.
The hon. member for Dauphin followed up his question with this one:
Do rural areas tend to give you a borrowing balance? I presume they do as compared to urban areas where you lend. Is this a noticeable factor?
February 21, 1969

Mr. Taylor replied:
I will ask Mr. Miller to answer that because I think he is better qualified to do so.
Mr. Miller is assistant general manager of finance and represented both Canada Trust and Huron and Erie. He replied:
Yes, I would say that more borrowings come in from rural areas than is lent out in rural areas on balance.
Then, the hon. member for Dauphin asked:
Do you think the difficulties of rural borrowers in acquiring money from companies such as yours, put them at a disadvantage as opposed to borrowers in a large city that have larger projects? Would this be a factor in less development in the rural area as opposed to a large urban area?
Mr. Miller replied:
I do not think you can generalize really because rural is a matter of degree. I do not think there is any problem in the rural areas around the metropolitan areas in obtaining loans, but if you get into the further, less accessible, rural areas I have no doubt that there is.
Even that well qualified and carefully phrased answer underlines the experience I had a number of years ago with trust and loan companies in the city of Vancouver, namely that Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation is damn well not interested in lending money in rural areas. It is just too bad people live out in the country as far as this company and other companies like it are concerned. These people are far too secure in their offices which I assume are in Toronto, though I do not know-to bother drawing money from the outlying parts of this nation. They prefer to concentrate their money in the cities where all they need do is cross the street or make a phone call to reinvest it.
The fact that Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation has over the years, not just this week or last month, not bothered to exert itself by providing mortgage money in rural areas concerns me. This is the company that gloats over the fact that it lends, as the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton pointed out, 88 per cent, or 85 per cent, or whatever the figure is, of its money in the form of mortgages. But not mortgages for people in rural areas, in communities of the kind from which I come or those in Newfoundland to which my hon. friend referred a little while ago.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
He knows, and others who live in the country know, that all the advantages accrue to the man who lives in the city, the urban dweller. He has no problem about getting
Private Bills
mortgage money from the trust companies. But people who live in the country do find problems in this regard. There is also the fact that there was some misunderstanding, to say the least, in connection with the information which was presented to the committee, and that in addition there does not seem to be any desire even to attempt to bring down interest rates. For these reasons, I believe the bill requires a little more examination and study. There is no doubt in my mind that when five o'clock comes we may still be debating it. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) who is sponsoring this measure is too nice a guy to distort our views in the country. He is a friendly person. After all, he used to be legal officer for the co-operative movement. He has a feeling for people, and for good sense. Nevertheless, I believe we will have to examine this measure further or another day.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to observe such a good attendance here as I begin to make my erudite comments on this bill, Bill S-7, an act respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation or, in French, La Corporation d'Hy-potheque Huron et Erie. According to the explanatory note, the authorized capital of the corporation is presently limited to an amount not exceeding $10 million divided into 5 million shares of a par value of $2 each of which almost all shares have been allotted and issued as fully paid and non-assessable. The corporation now desires to have additional capital available for issuance.
The main clause of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is claused) which reads:
The authorized capital of the Corporation shall be twenty million dollars divided into ten million shares of the par value of two dollars each.
It is common knowledge that the report of the committee is now available, and appended to that report is an amendment by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) seeking the deletion of clause 1 of the bill.
When I read the report, which is the product of close examination on the part of members of the committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, I found myself deeply impressed by the composition of that committee, which happens to be one of the highpow-ered committees of this house. Its membership includes the sponsor of this bill who has a wide knowledge of company affairs and legal matters. I understand he was a parliamentary agent for some years. He is a Rhodes scholar, along with the hon. member for


Duncan Gordon Blair: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having in mind the fact that we are dealing with the affairs of large corporations I think it is extremely dangerous for anybody to make a categorical assertion that these borrowing powers, or indeed, any powers, have been exhausted. This was never said, and I am instructed it is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that he has raised a point of debate rather than a point of order.


Frank Howard: It is a good time to raise points of order.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comment of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton with regard to this particular point. As I say, having little or no experience in these corporation matters, I find them difficult to follow at times. I understand that borrowing powers are determined by the authorized capital plus the surplus. This means that if you take into account the authorized capital plus the surplus you can lend out 15 times the amount. I always thought the surplus was not included, but to my surprise I learned differently. The evidence indicated the multiple is only four times as far as mortgage companies are concerned and 15 times for trust companies, subject to approval. That puts me on notice that we ought to scrutinize carefully the activities of this company. In committee, representatives of this company proudly said that 88 per cent of their money is invested in mortgages. I point out that that money consists of the collective deposits of many depositors. Those deposits may take the form of savings accounts, guaranteed investment certificates or demand notes. When I hear the figure of 88 per cent I am reminded of the report
February 21, 1969

tabled not long ago by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) which indicated that private financial institutions supply 42 per cent of the mortgage money needed in this country. Of that 42 per cent, 50 per cent is lent by insurance companies, 3.3 per cent by banks; 9 per cent by pension funds, and the rest by trust companies. It could be that a company investing 88 per cent of its money in mortgages does not have a balanced investment portfolio. I think it will be conceded that the investment policies of Canada Trust and Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation are very similar.
e (4:50 p.m.)


Duncan Gordon Blair: Will the hon. member permit a question. Is he suggesting that lesser amounts of money ought to be made available to meet the housing needs of this country?


John Gilbert: I appreciate the hon. member's interjection. He is concerned as much as I am about the matter of mortgage money and we both agree that more mortgage money must be found. The government has used methods of persuasion which have failed. Last August the Minister of Transport invited to Ottawa representatives of various financial institutions. He failed miserably to persuade them to put more money into mortgages. As a result, he had to take $170 million of public money in September and apply it to the field of public housing and building generally, so that the government's house building record could be maintained. Actually, the hon. member and I are ad idem on the serious mortgage problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: see the hon. member and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) both are specialists in Latin.
Private Bills


John Gilbert: Thank you. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) asked Mr. Taylor, who appeared before the committee, questions about the priorities of spending in the public and private sectors of our economy. Mr. Taylor indicated he was concerned about the moneys being spent by federal, municipal and provincial governments. He said these expenditures were affecting the mortgage market. The hon. member for Waterloo then asked Mr. Taylor whether the private sector should not be in some way governed or restricted in its investment policies. That suggestion Mr. Taylor repudiated, maintaining that if the private or productive sector were restricted, the development of Canada's natural resources would suffer. Implicit in his remarks was the suggestion that the shocking incidence of this country's unemployment will increase and that inflation will continue spiralling upwards. To be fair to Mr. Taylor, he conceded that inflationary pressures in this country had resulted from the operations of the international money market.
Mr. Taylor indicated to the committee that on conventional mortgage moneys lent by his company the rate charged was 9J per cent. He said that investors of the company were paid 7f per cent on their investments, leaving a spread between what was paid out and what was charged of approximately 1} per cent. Surely, then, if the company considers If per cent a fair return on a mortgage investment it does not matter whether the interest rate charged on the market is 6 per cent or 8 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time being five o'clock this house stands adjourned until two o'clock Monday afternoon.


[Stage Direction]
At five o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, February 24, 1969