1969-02-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: On Thursday last the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) rose on a question of privilege in relation to the tabling of a report by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). When tabling the paper, the Secretary of State used the following words:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to table a report concerning the security agents in some of our national museums, which report constitutes a reply to the numerous questions put to me in the house in the last few days.
The report appears to have been presented to the house under Standing Order 41(2). The hon. member for Peace River has expressed the view that the terms of the Standing Order are not sufficiently broad to include the tabling of that particular document. The hon. member has been supported in his contention by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has submitted the additional argument that the Secretary of State contravened the rules and practice of the house when he replied to oral questions by tabling the answer under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2). In reply to these objections, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald) suggests that Standing Order 41(2) should be given a wide, rather than a restrictive, interpretation. The substance of the minister's argument is summed up in the following words reported at page 4928 of Hansard of Thursday, January 30:
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
While Standing Order 41	(1) is really quite
precise as to the documents referred to, Standing Order 41 (2) is in the broadest possible terms. It permits a minister or a parliamentary secretary to lay on the table of the house any report or
other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government. I believe that the Chair should give the widest interpretation to those words.
Later Thursday afternoon, after the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) had raised his question of privilege, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) tabled a notice of motion to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act pursuant to Standing Order 60, subsection (1).
Then, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) he attempted to lay on the table a document which the minister described as "explaining the ways and means motion and giving some illustrations of the consequent changes in taxes".
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), supported in his views by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), took exception to the procedure. The Chair then suggested that no further proceedings be taken and that the tabling be held in abeyance while the point of order and the previous question of privilege were being considered.

It is fitting to consider first the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) about the tabling of a document by the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) . The hon. member, as well as others who supported his question of privilege, contend that the said document is not one which can be tabled under standing order 41(2). Secondly, they argue that the minister erred when he attempted to reply to questions put by some hon. members by another method than that prescribed by the standing orders. After much thought, I must decide in favour of the hon. members who questioned the procedure used, and especially the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who raised the second objection.
According to the standing orders, a question put during the daily oral question period may be answered either by an oral answer, by an order for return or by a ministerial statement on motions. I must express the opinion that the new standing order 41(2) does not provide for the establishment of a new procedure or answering oral questions.

February 3. 1969
Tabling of Documents
Therefore I must conclude that the question of privilege was justified. I suggest to hon members that as far as answers to questions are concerned, standing order 41(2) should be given that interpretation.

I should like to consider now the procedural point raised in connection with the effort by the Minister of Finance to table the memorandum to which I have already alluded. As hon. members know, Standing Order 41(1) corresponds word for word with the previous rule, Standing Order 40, subsection (1). The Standing Order reads as follows:
Any return, report or other paper required to be laid before the House in accordance with any Act of Parliament or in pursuance of any resolution or Standing Order of this House may be deposited with the Clerk of the House on any sitting day, and such return, report or other paper shall be deemed for all purposes to have been presented to or laid before the House.
That rule, corresponding, as I have said, to the previous Standing Order 40(1) determines the class of documents or papers that must be tabled by a minister pursuant to a statutory provision or to a standing or other order of the house.
The house has now adopted another Standing Order, 41(2), which reads as follows:
A minister of the Crown, or a parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of a minister, may, in his place in the house, state that he proposes to lay upon the table of the house, any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government and, thereupon, the same shall be deemed for all purposes to have been laid before the house.
The new Standing Order can be interpreted in only one of two ways; either it is intended to provide another method of tabling the papers described in Standing Order 41(1) or it is intended to provide a method to table documents other than those provided in 41(1). In my view, the second interpretation only is logical. Indeed, if Standing Order 41(2) means anything, it must be that it enlarges the class of papers which can be tabled by the government without notice and without leave.
The Chair is bound by the clear words of the rule to the effect that a minister may table any report or other paper dealing with a matter coming within the administrative responsibilities of the government. So long as the report or paper deals with a matter which comes within the administrative responsibility of the government, and that the paper is an official document for which the minister or parliamentary secretary accepts responsibility, it can be tabled pursuant to Standing Order 41(2).
If this interpretation of the rule results in the tabling of a type of paper or document which had not been contemplated by the procedure committee, it is of course open to the members of that committee to review the Standing Order and redraft it in a way which would justify a more restrictive interpretation. For the time being, the Chair would be inclined to accept, for tabling, papers or reports which deal with matters coming within administrative responsibility of the government and which are official papers in the sense that they are proposed to the house by a minister, either directly or through his parliamentary secretary, in the exercise of his ministerial responsibility.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF AGENDA AND OTHER DOCUMENTS

Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last December, when it became necessary to postpone the second constitutional conference, the question of when certain documents would be tabled in the house was raised and I answered that I would take the advice of the authorities of other governments, so that a date acceptable to everybody could be set.
Those consultations have taken place. There is now a general agreement to make those documents known on the following dates:

First, two main working documents of the conference, the report of the continuing committee of officials and a briefing paper on the discussions within that committee, are being released today by the secretariat of the constitutional conference. I should like to table these documents-

-copies in English and in French of those documents.

As to the papers of the Government of Canada, we shall be releasing these on Thursday of this week at 2 p.m. eastern standard time. This is the day generally agreed for the release of material by the participating governments, although certain of the provinces have already made public some of their position papers.
I should also like to table at this time the agenda, in English and French, of the conference beginning next week.

February 3, 1969



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Fortin: 1.	Has an application for a broadcasting licence by a provincial government or its agents ever been rejected and, if so, when and with respect to what applications and on what grounds?
2.	What is the composition of the study group on educational broadcasting, what are its terms of reference and, when will it submit its report?
3.	Will this report be tabled in the House?


Mr. Yves Foresl (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am
informed by the Secretary of State and the Postmaster General as follows: 1. No. The policy of the Government, as stated in the House of Commons on May 3, 1946 is still in effect that since broadcasting is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government, broadcasting licences shall not be issued to other governments or corporations owned by other governments.
2.	The members of the Task Force E.T.V. are as follows: Mr. Jules Leger, Under Secretary of State, Chairman; Mr. Gilles Bergeron of the Post Office Department; Mr. D. S. Thorson of the Justice Department; Mr. Michael Pitfield of the Privy Council Office; Mr. Ivo Krupka of the Privy Council Office, Secretary; Mr. George Miedzinski of C.R.T.C. -Head of the Study Group.
The Task Force is to study all aspects of this subject in order to assist the government in fulfilling its undertaking to facilitate the development of adequate broadcasting facilities to meet provincial requirements for the transmission of educational programmes. The Task Force will undertake a variety of specific assignments and is not asked to produce a comprehensive report.
3.	See part 2.


ATLANTIC PROVINCES-INCREASE IN CANADIAN NATIONAL REVENUES
Mr. Coates: What has been the increase in revenues to the Canadian National Railways from the new less-than-carload-lot rates that were imposed on shippers in the Atlantic Provinces in September, 1967, to this date?
Questions


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: During the period January 1 to October 31, 1968, there have been variations in the comparative total revenues on a month to month basis. However, on a cumulative basis, system revenues from this traffic are less than 1 per cent below the revenues generated in the same period in 1967.


CANADIAN NATIONAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. Godin: In Canada, in Quebec and in the federal constituency of Portneuf (a) how many telegraph operators were employed by the CNR in 1957 and 1967 (b) how many employees of all categories were employed by the CNR in 1957 and 1967 (c) what was the total amount of salaries paid by this company in 1957 and 1967?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: As the system is administered by regions which do not conform to the geographical boundaries of the Provinces, also as telegraph operators are grouped with station agents, caretaker agents, levermen and telegraphers, the information is not readily available in the form asked, and to extract the data would entail considerable time and expense.
However, a report entitled "Canadian National Railway and the Province of Quebec", presented to the Sessional Committee on Railways, Air Lines and Shipping on December 12th, 1963, as recorded in the minutes of proceedings and evidence commencing on page 361, states that in 1962 the working force of CN in the Province of Quebec numbered 21,994 and the total wages and salaries of this group exceeded $120,000,000.
The number of employees all categories Canadian Lines and their total compensation for the years in question are as folows:-
No. of employees Total compensation 1957	114,750	$425,030,402.1967	86,200	550,049,038.


USE OF RAILWAY TRACK BETWEEN MONTREAL AND OTTAWA
Mr. Godin: On what date in the winter of 1967 did a C.N.R. train, leaving Montreal and going to Ottawa, illegally use a C.P.R. section of tracks, what was the number of that train and how many minutes was the train late in Ottawa because of that incident?

February 3, 1969
Questions


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The question appears to have reference to an incident which occurred in Ottawa on February 5, 1967 when Canadian National Railway Train No. 133 from Montreal was permitted, by signal, access to Canadian Pacific trackage in preparation for a reverse movement into Ottawa station. Through error, the train crew continued to Navan on the Canadian Pacific trackage. Train No. 133 was 1 hour and 17 minutes late arriving in Ottawa.


GOLD MINES SUBSIDIES
Mr. Tetreaulf: 1.	What amounts of subsidies were paid to gold mines in Canada during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	What amounts of subsidies were paid for products exported from Canada during the years 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. Payments to the operators in gold mines in Canada under the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act are as follows:
Fiscal years	1965-66	$14,757,573"	"	1966-67	14,959,891"	"	1967-68	15,199,765
2. Payments to the Canadian Wheat Board in support of the minimum prices for the sales of wheat made by the Canadian Wheat Board are:
Fiscal years	1965-66	Nil"	"	1966-67	Nil"	"	1967-68	$2,649,236


NATIONAL SPORTS COUNCIL MEMBERSHIP
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many members are there on the National Sports Council?
2.	Have any professional recreation people been appointed to the Committee such as Recreational Director and/or Supervisor and, if not, for what reason, and will such people be appointed?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minisier of National Health and Welfare):: 1. 33.
2.	Yes.
IMr. Godin.]


OVERSELL ON AIR CANADA FLIGHTS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Is it Air Canada's policy to oversell airline passenger accommodation on Air Canada flights between (a) Ottawa/Toronto (b) Toronto/Ottawa
(c)	Ottawa/Montreal (d) Montreal/Ottawa (e) Toronto/Montreal (f) Montreal/Toronto?
2.	Does the government intend to reduce the air fare on flights where there is no competition from other airlines?
3.	What is the net revenue earned by Air Canada for passenger service provided between (a) Ottawa/ Montreal (b) Ottawa/Toronto (c) Montreal/Ottawa
(d)	Montreal/Toronto (e) Toronto/Ottawa (f) Toronto/Montreal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. No; the Air Canada reservations system is designed to achieve equalization between demand and capacity well in advance of departure time, and only a breakdown in communications or human error would bring about overbooking at departure time.
3. Air Canada is unable to provide the net revenue earned for passenger service between the city pairs listed, as all flights (with the exception of all-cargo aircraft which does not carry passengers), simultaneously transport passengers, excess baggage, mail, freight and express traffic. It is impossible to segregate the costs of flying aircraft as between the types of traffic carried on board the flights.
Regarding part 2, the government exercises no control over air fares. Regulation of tolls and tariflis is a matter coming under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission, pursuant to the provisions of the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportation Act.


TRANSFER OF VETERANS HOSPITALS
Mr. McCleave: 1.	With what provinces and municipalities has the Department of Veterans Affairs held discussions about turning over its hospitals?
2.	Have any hospitals operated by the Department been turned over to provincial, municipal or other non-federal control and, if so, which hospitals and on what terms, since the end of the Second World War?
3.	Are any discussions continuing and, if so, involving which hospitals?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. With the Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia, and in addition in recent months discussions have taken place with municipal authorities at London, Ontario,
February 3, 1989

in connection with their interest in our property at Westminster Hospital. In 1949 discussions took place with the City of Toronto concerning the transfer of the departmental Christie Street Hospital to that municipality on the completion of our building program at Sunnybrook Hospital. There were also negotiations with the City of Ste. Hyacinthe, Quebec, in 1955, resulting in their taking over from the Department our T.B. sanatorium at that location, and in 1962 with the Ottawa civic authorities on our abandonment of the Veterans Pavilion at the Civic Hospital upon the opening of the National Defence Medical Centre.
2.	During the immediate post war years there were many transactions between the Department, provincial and municipal authorities and other agencies concerning the disposal of properties that had been used as departmental treatment facilities and which became surplus to our requirements on the building of departmental hospitals or additional wings thereto.
In more recent years the following agreements have taken place:
(1)	The Health and Occupational Centre at Ridgewood near Saint John, New Brunswick was, in 1965, leased for 21 years to the New Brunswick Provincial Workmen's Compensation Board under an agreement by which the Department has a lien on 30 beds for the domiciliary care of entitled veterans. Under the agreement the rental to be paid by the Province to the City of Lancaster is equal to the payments the Federal Government would have made to that municipality in lieu of taxes under the Municipal Grants Act.
(2)	Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, was, on October 1, 1966, transferred for one dollar to the University of Toronto. The agreement provided that the Hospital would continue to give priority admission to eligible veterans requiring treatment and accordingly 630 beds were reserved for the active treatment of veterans and 570 beds for chronic and domiciliary care. The staff were guaranteed employment with comparable rates of pay and ancillary benefits. The Federal Government is responsible for the cost of a new wing of 400 beds upon request of the University of Toronto.
(3)	The Veterans Home in Edmonton was, by agreement, in November 1966, transferred to the Province of Alberta for the sum of one dollar. This was replaced by a new chronic and domiciliary care unit of 150 beds adjacent to the University Hospital at a shared
Questions
cost to the Department of $615,000. At the time this was opened in November 1966, the agreement provided that the Wells and Mew-burn pavilions become the property of the Hospital with the Department occupying space for administrative and outpatient purposes.
(4)	Lancaster Hospital, Saint John, New Brunswick, was the subject of an agreement on March 25, 1968 between the Department and the Government of New Brunswick and the General Hospital, Saint John which provided that Lancaster Hospital will be transferred to the Province on July 1, 1970, for the sum of one dollar. The General Hospital has agreed to add a veterans' wing of 300 beds to its own facilities for the priority care of eligible veterans. The Federal Government will make a grant of $4,500,000 to that Hospital. The staff will be assimilated under terms comparable to those arranged at Sunnybrook.
(5)	Ste. Foy Veterans Hospital, Quebec, was, on September 1, 1968, transferred to the Province of Quebec which in turn has deeded it to the University of Laval. The real prop-perty of the hospital was ceded to the Province for one dollar. The Department has priority use of 150 beds for veteran patients of which 110 are for active and chronic care and 40 for domiciliary care. Within six years from the date of transfer the Province will erect a wing of 40 beds, the cost of which will be borne by the Federal Government. The hospital staff have been assimilated by the University of Laval at rates of pay and employee benefits not less favourable than those in effect in the public service at the time of transfer.
3.	Yes, involving: Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax, N.S.; Queen Mary Veterans Hospital, Montreal, P.Q.; Ste. Anne's Hospital, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, P.Q.; Westminster Hospital, London, Ontario.; Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba.; Colonel Belcher Hospital, Calgary, Alberta.; Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C.; Veterans Hospital, Victoria, B.C.; George Derby Veterans Home, Burnaby, B.C.


C.B.C. TIME ALLOTMENT
Mr. Fortin: 1.	Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have a specific policy regarding the use and distribution of time it allots to (a) apolitical movements (b) political movements (c) others for public information over its networks, both (i) radio, and (ii) television?

February 3, 1969
Questions
2.	If so, when was the policy adopted and on what principle (s) is it based?
3.	If not, will such a policy be adopted and when?
4.	If there is no intention of adopting such a policy, for what reason?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the C.B.C. as follows: 1. Yes. Free time is allocated to bona fide political parties for the expression of opinion. There is no allocation of free time to groups other than bona fide political parties but the Corporation applies to all controversial issues the principles enunciated in reply to Part 2.
2.	The policy of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation governing political and controversial broadcasting was adopted in the early years of public broadcasting and is based on the following principles: (i) The air belongs to the people who are entitled to hear the principal points of view on all questions of importance; (ii) The air must not fall under the control of any individuals or groups influential by reason of their wealth or special position; (iii) The right to answer is inherent in the doctrine of free speech; (iv) The full interchange of opinion is one of the principal safeguards of free institutions.
The C.B.C. does not sell time to individuals or commercial concerns for broadcasts of opinions or propaganda. It furthers the foregoing principles by the provision of free time to competent speakers to present, without let or hindrance, varying points of view on questions of the day. The C.B.C. considers that the best safeguard of freedom of discussion is a policy which permits fair opportunity for the expression of varied points of view on issues of public interest and concern.
C.B.C. policy with regard to party political broadcasting is based on the fact that for the proper functioning of representative and democratic government, it is essential that the public should be fully informed of the issues at stake in any provincial or federal election, and of the position and policies of the various parties on these issues. To carry out this policy, the C.B.C. follows a general plan for party political broadcasting which includes the provision of network time free of charge to recognized political parties during general elections. This gives all qualifying parties the opportunity of speaking to a wide public, irrespective of their capacity to buy time. In the periods between elections, an amount of free, network time is

made available to recognized party leaders or their representatives.
The allocation of free time broadcasts between elections traditionally has been established at a meeting between the C.B.C. and qualifying parties held at the beginning of each new Parliament.
Free time broadcast periods during election campaigns are also allocated in immediate consultation with the parties.
3.	N/A.
4.	N/A.


STATISTICS RESPECTING UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	According to the latest available statistics, what is the total number of unemployed persons in Canada?
2.	What was the comparable figure for the same month in 1967?
3.	Has the government any plans for alleviating winter unemployment?
4.	If so, what types of programs are projected?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, the Departments of Manpower and Immigration and Finance as follows: 1. The total number of unemployed persons in Canada was estimated to be 338,000 in the week ended November 16, 1968.
2.	The comparable figure for the same month in 1967 was 289,000. The number of employed persons rose from 7,409,000 to
7,677,000	over the same period of time.
3 and 4. The Department of Manpower and Immigration gives consideration at all times to the improvement of manpower programs in order to combat not only winter unemployment but unemployment in general. In the current fiscal year, the federal government will spend $197 million to provide training and retraining for adult workers. As compared with the previous fiscal year, this is an increase of $47 million. The training program is planned, in co-operation with the provinces, so that, wherever possible, adult workers are placed in training when they are unemployed. There is also a program which will this fiscal year provide various kinds of mobility grants to approximately 30,000 workers involving an expenditure of $4 million. The counselling and placement services of Canada Manpower Centres across the country have been greatly extended and improved.
February 3, 1969

Although the Department of Finance does not administer any programs having the direct effect of creating winter employment, its whole fiscal policy is aimed at balancing the goals of full employment, price stability and economic growth.


DOMICILIARY CARE UNDER VETERANS CHARTER
Mr. Dinsdale: How many veterans have been provided for under the domiciliary care provisions of the Veterans Charter each year and in each veterans' hospital since 1960?
Questions


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The domiciliary care provisions of the Veterans Charter are contained in section 29 of the Veterans Treatment Regulations made under authority of the Department of Veterans Affairs Act. The following table shows the number of patients in hospital under this section of the Regulations as of March 31 of each year from 1960 to 1968. These include both chronic care and domiciliary (bed and board) types of cases but departmental statistics do not provide a breakdown of the number of patients in each category.


NUMBER OF INPATIENTS IN DEPARTMENTAL INSTITUTIONS UNDER DOMICILIARY (INCLUDING CHRONIC) CARE AS AT MARCH 31, 1960 TO 1968 INCLUSIVE
[Stage Direction]
I960	1961	1962	1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	1968Camp Hill	131	154	143	139	145	155	160	160	177Lancaster	104	94	105	116	125	80	79	77	69Ste-Foy	40	40	44	46	37	34	29	31	45Queen Mary	20	14	17	15	15	17	8	11	13Ste. Anne's	635	521	529	480	476	468	468	466	448Rideau Vets. Home..	121	134	122	91	98	114	116	113	117Sunnybrook	575	542	476	441	423	412	406	Westminster	249	244	240	258	267	264	272	299	332Deer Lodge	219	216	210	201	192	187	169	175	153Vets. Home Sa	56	63	60	59	45	48	51	57	68Col. Belcher	187	154	136	121	130	139	128	105	112Vets. Home Ed	67	67	70	72	69	75	72	118	138Shaughnessy	501	454	452	458	442	462	461	489	534Vets. Hosp. Victoria..	114	114	114	125	134	119	121	118	123Total, Dom. Care Group	3,019	2,811	2,718	2,622	2,598	2,574	2,540	2,219	2,329

Mr. Robinson: Is the federal government providing any financial assistance on the start of the waterfront development in Metropolitan Toronto as announced by Campeau Corporation Limited of Ottawa?


Yves Forest: No.


VICTOR ASSELS, STONEWALL, MAN.- SALE OF PROPERTY
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	Did the Industrial Development Bank at any time in 1967 sell or otherwise dispose of property owned until the time of sale by one Victor Assels of Stonewall, Manitoba?
2.	If so, was this transaction initiated by action taken by the Industrial Development Bank?
3.	If so, for what reason?
4.	What price or value did the Industrial Development Bank place on this property?
5.	Did the Industrial Development Bank put forward the price of $63,000 on this property in its initial estimates as to the value of said property?
6.	Were tenders called for this property?
7.	If so, were any bids received and for how much in each case?
8.	If bids were received, why were they not accepted?
9.	By what means was this property finally sold by the IDB and for what amount?
10.	If the property was sold quite apart from formal bids that were received, was there more than one offer?
11.	Did the IDB refuse an offer that was in excess of that which was actually accepted?
12.	If so, on what grounds was the lower offer given preference?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: While the IDB provides comprehensive aggregate data on its operations in its Annual Report, it has not been the practice nor is it considered appropriate to make public information concerning individual accounts.

February 3# 1969
Questions


MONTREAL-AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE AND OVERHAUL
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What construction is planned in order to add to the (a) air terminal facilities (b) Air Canada maintenance and overhaul facilities, in Montreal?
2.	What is the estimated cost in each case and what are the projected dates for such construction?
3.	Is any construction planned to increase (a) air terminals (b) aircraft maintenance facilities either Crown owned or privately owned at Vancouver?
4.	If so, what is the estimated cost and what are the dates projected for commencement and completion of such construction?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: 1 and 2. (a) In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned: Additional minimum interim facilities are planned at Montreal International Airport to cater to increased traffic and the introduction of Jumbo Aircraft in the period 1969-1972. The estimated cost of such interim facilities to be constructed in 1969, 1970 and 1971 is $9,200,000; (b) In so far as Air Canada is concerned, Management advises as follows:-
The following Maintenance and Overhaul facilities form part of the approved 1968 Air Canada Capital Budget, although construction has not yet commenced:-
Year of
Project	Cost Completion
Expansion of Power Plant Shops, Unit
Shops and Support
Shops 		$ 2,800,000	1969
New Line Maintenance		
Hangar 		$21,200,000	1971
Certain other requirements are presently under study and may be developed for Dorval and Malton and other points on the system but are not yet in a firm stage.
3 and 4. (a) In so far as the Department of Transport is concerned, at Vancouver some modifications are anticipated to the holdrooms and apron of the air terminal to accommodate the first Jumbo Aircraft at an estimated cost of $600,000 to be completed by 1971. (b) Canadian Pacific Airlines are constructing a large maintenance base at Vancouver Airport for completion in April, 1969, at an estimated cost of $20,000,000. In so far as Air Canada is concerned, Management advises it is planned to construct a new Maintenance Hangar and associated facilities at Vancouver for completion in 1971, at an estimated cost of $9,200,000.


TESTING OF ARTIFICIAL GRAVEL
Mr. Mather: Is the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office giving consideration to testing "artificial gravel" a substance used in improving highway safety by grading dangerous curves?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As indicated in my announcement of October 17, 1967, outlining the responsibility of the Department of Transport in the field of motor vehicle and highway safety, the new office will have responsibility for program co-ordination and the establishment of safety standards. Therefore, the Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office will not itself undertake tests on "artificial gravel" or similar road building materials.
The Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Office is closely following the progress of tests currently being made by a number of agencies, including some provincial government departments and particularly those relating to skid resistance of pavement surfaces to traffic accidents. The relationships between aggregate texture, polishing and skid resistance have not as yet been completely evaluated.


CAR PERFORMANCE INFORMATION
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to requiring car manufacturers to inform car owners at the point of sale of the car's performance in such areas as (a) vehicle stopping distance (b) driver field of view (c) acceleration and passing ability (d) overall steering ratio (e) flammability of materials in car interiors?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Department of Transport is not at present considering the need for providing vehicle performance capability information to automobile purchasers. The new Office on Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety in the Department is, however, concerned with safety standards for new vehicles at the point of manufacture.
Officials of my Department are closely following the discussions in the United States on proposals which would require providing such information to automobile purchasers at the point of sale. There is some question regarding the real ultimate value of the knowledge that would be made available, quite apart from the difficulty of standardizing the manner in which it could be most usefully presented.
February 3, 1983


INVESTIGATION OF CAR REPAIR INDUSTRY
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to investigating alleged high cost and low quality of the car repair industry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Department of Transport does not have authority to undertake the type of investigation implied in the question.
The car repair industry is highly localized, hence any action that might initially be taken would be on the municipal or provincial government level.


AMHERST, N.S.-ENLARGEMENT OF FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to enlarge the Federal Building in Amherst, Nova Scotia, that houses the facilities of the Post Office Department?
2.	Have final plans been completed for the proposed extension and, if not, when will final plans be completed in this regard?
3.	If final plans for the extension have been completed, what will be involved in the proposed extension of facilities and will the government require additional lands in order to carry out the proposed extension and, if so, how much additional land will be required?
4.	On what date were plans initiated for the proposed extension and what have been the reasons for the substantial delays between the planning of the extension and the calling of tenders for the enlargement?
5.	On what date does the government intend to call tenders for the extension to this federal building?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. This matter is still under review.
2.	No; not known.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	During 1967. The delays have been due to several changes in space requirements.
5.	Not known.


AMHERST, N.S.-CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING
Mr. Coates: 1.	On what date did the federal government first indicate its intention to construct a federal building in the Town of Amherst to house departments of the federal government now located in rented space?
2.	What was the initial date indicated for the construction of this building and why have delays in the start of construction been recommended?
Questions
3.	Have complaints been received by the government and, if so, from whom, over the delays in the construction of this building?
4.	What is the present date for the initiation of construction of this building?
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public
Works): 1. On February 14, 1966 when the 1966-67 Estimates were tabled.
2.	During the 1967-68 fiscal year. The delays are due to a number of successive changes in space requirements by the occupying departments.
3.	Not by the Department of Public Works.
4.	No date has been set.


INCLUSION OF WOMEN IN CABINET
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to facilitating governmental rapport by the inclusion of women in the Cabinet?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: The facilitation of governmental rapport by appropriate and effective means is constantly being considered.


PURCHASE OF DUMP TRUCKS
Mr. Marshall: In the contract for the purchase of dump trucks from F.W.D. Corporation (Canada) Ltd. for $51,718.92 (a) how many trucks were involved (b) was the purchase made by tender (c) what firms tendered (d) what were the amounts of each tender (e) for what purpose were the trucks purchased?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: (a) 2; (b) yes; (c) and (d) International Harvester Co. of Canada, Ottawa $21,456.87 and $28,749.84 and F.W.D. Corporation, Kitchener $21,574.84 and $30,193.08.
In both instances the lower offers of International Harvester Company of Canada were bypassed as the equipments offered did not meet the departmental specifications; (e) snow removal operations at St. John's and Gander Airports, Newfoundland.


NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the total amount of Canada's national debt?
2.	What part of this debt can be attributed to Canada Savings Bonds?
3.	What part of this debt can be attributed to Victory Bonds?

February 3, 1969
Questions
4.	What was the proportion of the savings bonds bought by individuals?
5.	What was the proportion bought by financial institutions?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	As at January 15, 1969 the total amount of Government of Canada Direct and Guaranteed Debt outstanding was $23,574 million.
2.	Of this amount, Canada Savings Bonds accounted for $6,361 million.
3.	At December 31,	1968 there were
$6,892,000 of matured Victory Bonds outstanding. This total is included in 1 above.
4.	Due to the very large sales volume of the 1968/69 Canada Savings Bond Series, the register is still in the process of being prepared and consequently it is not possible at this time to differentiate quantitatively between Canada Savings Bonds bought by individuals and by institutions. However, it is known that individuals account for the great majority of purchases.
5.	Not available.


OLD AGE SECURITY RECIPIENTS OUTSIDE CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,156
Mr. Godin:: 1.	What is the total number of Canadians outside Canada who are recipients of Old Age Security?
2.	What is the total number in (a) the United States (b) Britain (c) Europe (d) Poland (e) Russia (f) other countries?


John Carr Munro: 1. For November 1968, 13,290.
2. Statistics not available.


UNIVERSITY SUPPORT FOR QUEEN ELIZABETH TELESCOPE PROJECT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	Has there been a request from the Universities of Calgary, Alberta, Lethbridge, Victoria, British Columbia, Simon Fraser and Notre Dame to have consideration given to revive construction plans for the Queen Elizabeth telescope project?
2.	If so, will the government give its support thereto and in particular will it agree to turn over the Mount Kobau assets to a consortium of the above and other universities?


Mr. R. J. Orange (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1.	Yes.
2.	The matter is under consideration by the government at present.


CAMP BORDEN SITE FOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,163
Mr. Noble:: Has the government considered using the thirty square miles of Crown land at Camp Borden as a site for the proposed new international airport?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The Department of Transport has not, as yet, undertaken a site selection program in connection with the new Toronto Airport. The Department is, however, aware of the existence of the Crown owned property in the Camp Borden area and this area will, along with others, be given consideration as a possible site.


DISTRIBUTION OF CANADA PENSION PLAN PAMPHLET
Mr. Aiken: 1.	How many copies were printed of the pamphlet "Canada Pension Plan-Contribution Tables No. 3- January 1, 1969" by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	What is the approximate cost of printing and distributing this pamphlet?
3.	Except for a slight adjustment in the maximum contribution, were there any changes from the 1968 pamphlet?
4.	Why was the whole pamphlet reprinted, rather than noting the maximum change by circular?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. 500,000 in English and 10,000 in French.
2.	Cost of printing was approximately 9 cents per copy in English and 10 cents per copy in French. Distribution cost was approximately 5 cents per copy.
3.	Yes. The examples shown on pages 9 and 10 of the booklet were revised and the instructions on pages 39, 40 and 41 were rewritten.
4.	Changes in the instructions and examples were necessary in order to provide employers with up-to-date information. This could have been accomplished either by issuing a circular or by issuing a revised contribution table. It was decided to issue revised tables because it has been found that the use of inserts or circulars to update regulatory instructions has proven generally unsatisfactory.
[Mr. Matte.)
February 3, 1969

Questions


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Saltsman: What are the annual expenditures of the Industrial Development Bank in providing loans to Canadian business for the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968?


Edgar John Benson: The annual operating expenses and debenture costs of the Industrial Development Bank in providing loans to Canadian business for the years 1963 to 1968 are shown on Pages 28 and 29 of the Annual Report of the President for 1968.


FAMILY ALLOWANCE AND OLD AGE SECURITY PAYMENTS
Mr. Matte: 1.	What is the total amount of Family Allowances paid in each of the provinces of Canada?
2.	What is the total amount of Old Age Security pensions paid in each of the provinces of Canada?


John Carr Munro: 1. For November, 1968:

1,423,269 263,276 1,774,243 1,528,242 13,608,792 15,783,205 2,106,406 2,201,125 3,637,256 4,236,107
123,564

2,634,159 1,029,203 5,653,300 4,235,034 29,631,102 45,180,463 7,200,096 7,083,044 8,470,984 14,751,901
101,389


ACQUISITION OF ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON
Mr. Robinson: Has the federal government considered the advisability of acquiring the island group of St. Pierre and Miquelon which are located within the territorial waters of Canada?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The answer to the question is in the negative. I might point out that the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon are not located within the territorial waters of Canada. They were ceded to France by Great Britain under the Treaty of Versailles of September 3, 1783, and comprise part of the Overseas Territories of France.


CANADIAN UNITS IN NATO AND NORAD
Mr. Robinson: 1.	Are the units forming Canada's commitment to (a) Norad (b) Nato, up to establishment strength and, if not, to what extent?
2.	Are the Canadian Forces up to establishment strength at the present time, and, if not, what is the present requirement to bring establishment up to strength and when is it anticipated this will be brought about?
3.	Does the government propose any incentives
(a)	to encourage enlistment in the Canadian forces
(b)	to retain present members of the Canadian Forces?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence):: Attention is directed to Minutes No. 14 of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, dated November 21, 1968. 1. The units forming Canada's commitment to (a) NORAD and (b) NATO, with the exception of one destroyer escort, which is due to go into refit shortly, are manned to meet present commitments.
2.	No, the present total establishment figure is a little over 103,000 and actual strength at the end of November was 99,064, so that there is a shortage of approximately 4,000 overall in relation to the establishment. The manning ceiling, however, has been set at 98,000 for the current year.
3.	(a) and (b) Every effort is made to ensure that wages are comparable to those paid in industry for similar employment, that there is the real prospect of an acceptable career, and a fringe benefits package sufficient to offset the many disadvantages of service life.
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories and Yukon
2. For November, 1968:
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Northwest Territories and Yukon

February 3, 1969
Questions


READER'S DIGEST CONDENSED BOOK CLUB
Mr. Andersen: Has the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs been in communication with the Reader's Digest Company concerning any complaints received by his Department about the manner in which the Reader's Digest Condensed Book Club membership scheme is operated and, if so, has the Minister made representations to the Reader's Digest Company protesting the Company's policy of informing members of the public without solicitation that they have become trial members of the plan and billing them accordingly?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporaie Affairs):: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, through his departmental officers, has been in communication with the Reader's Digest Company concerning their Lucky Number Draw Promotion mailings.
The Minister has not made representations to the Reader's Digest Company protesting the company's policy of informing members of the public without solicitation that they have become trial members of the plan and billing them accordingly, because the Company has stated that they never, under any circumstances, enter a trial membership, or send merchandise without having first received a positive response to advertising material.


ESQUIMALT HARBOUR POLLUTION ABATEMENT
Mr. Anderson: Has the Department of National Defence completed the 1st phase of its pollution abatement program for Esquimalt Harbour mentioned on page 22 of the 1966 Report of Associated Engineering Services Ltd. on pollution in the Greater Victoria area?


David Walter Groos: The
first phase of the Department of National Defence's pollution abatement program provides for the collection of all sanitary wastes originating in HMC Dockyard Esquimalt, and their delivery to the municipal sewage system. This work is programmed for completion in 1970-71.


ESQUIMALT HARBOUR, B.C.,-DISCHARGE OF ACID WASTES
Mr. Anderson: 1. Are acid wastes from the plating shop at HMC Dockyard, Esquimalt Harbour, B.C., being dis-
charged without treatment into the water near the Pacific Naval Laboratory?
2. If so, what measures does the government intend to take to reduce this pollution?


David Walter Groos: 1. No,
acid wastes from the plating shop are diluted and neutralized before being introduced to the sewage system. However, it is an acknowledged fact that sanitary wastes are being discharged, without treatment, into the waters adjacent to HMC Dockyard, Esquimalt.
2. See reply to Question No. 1,205.



PRIMROSE LAKE, SASK.,-REVOCATION OF FISHING PRIVILEGES

Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	On what date did the Department of National Defence revoke the privileges accorded to residents of the area who for years fished in Primrose Lake, Saskatchewan?
2.	By whom, and for what reasons, was the decision to revoke these privileges made?
3.	For how many years prior to this decision had these privileges been in effect?
4.	Was there any consultation before the decision was made by the Department of National Defence with the Federal Department of Fisheries and/or the Government of Saskatchewan?
5.	If so, what was the advice received from the Department of Fisheries?


David Walter Groos: 1. On 1
April 1954, the privileges of local residents to fish in Primrose Lake were suspended when the lake was reserved for use as an air weapons range.
2.	An agreement was reached between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan to suspend the granting of fishing privileges because safe operation of the air weapons range would not permit fishing to take place.
3.	This is unknown as the licensing authority was The Fisheries Branch of the Saskatchewan Department of Natural Resources.
4.	and 5. Yes. Under the terms of the agreement with the Government of Saskatchewan, the Federal Government paid compensation to fishermen who held licenses and, inter alia, reimburses the Province annually for the loss of revenue from fish.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES AT PRIME MINISTERS MEETINGS

Mr. Matte: Does the government intend to request that French be declared one of the official languages
February 3, 1969

at the meetings of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth?


Mitchell William Sharp: No.



BANKRUPTCY ACT REVISION

Mr. Fortin: 1.	What is the present stage of the work of the committee in charge of revising the Bankruptcy Act?
2.	When will the new Act be introduced?
3.	How many bankruptcies were there, by province. for each of the last six months?
4.	What steps are being taken by the government to prevent fraudulent bankruptcies?


Stanley Ronald Basford: 1. I am advised that the Committee in charge of revising the Bankruptcy Act expects to have its report as well as a draft Bill revising the Bankruptcy Act ready by the end of the present year.
2. As soon as the report of the Committee is available, it will receive my immediate attention.
Questions
3.	See attached Schedule.
4.	In July of 1966, important amendments to the Bankruptcy Act were passed by Parliament which, among other things, empowered the Superintendent of Bankruptcy to investigate cases where it is suspected that offences to the Bankruptcy Act, the Criminal Code or any other Act of the Parliament of Canada have been committed.
The Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy was subsequently reorganized and regional offices were opened in Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver which are staffed with professional accountants and investigators. In addition, the Superintendent of Bankruptcy makes extensive use of the services of the R.C.M. Police.
The complaints received by the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in 1968 totalled 279. Of these, 56 were referred to the R.C.M. Police for investigation while 223 were handled by the staff of the Bankruptcy Branch. During 1968, a total of approximately 50 charges were laid on behalf of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy in matters relating to bankruptcy.
Basford.]



BANKRUPTCIES AND PROPOSALS UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT BY PROVINCE FOR EACH OF THE LAST SIX MONTHS

[Stage Direction]
July 1968 August 1968 Sept. 1968
Oct. 1968
Nov. 1968
Dec. 1968
Total
©
<T>
Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop. Bank. Prop.
Newfoundland					_	
Prince Edward Island						
Nova Scotia					2	
New Brunswick					3	
Quebec	9	112	15Ontario	1	92	5Manitoba	1	4	_Saskatchewan	11	Alberta	-	14	1British Columbia	-	11	3TOTAL	
266	11	249	24-	-	-	-	1	-	1	2	--	-	-	-	-	-	-	2	-	1	-	-	-	-	-	6	2	-	3	-	3	-	2	-	15	151	16	165	21	153	18	130	15	824	94121	4	125	4	130	1	139	3	724	183	-	10	1	8	-	4	-	36	26	-	6	-	8	-	5	-	42	5	-	13	-	7	-	8	-	53	114	-	13	-	27	-	17	-	96	3304	20	336	26	337	19	306	18	1,798	118COMMONS DEBATES	February 3# 1969
February 3. 1369


Mr. Beaudoin: During the fiscal years ending March 31, 1965, 1966, 1967 and 1968, what amounts were paid by the government in travelling expenses for each federal Cabinet Minister?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the request made by several of the provincial premiers in western Canada that economic matters should be given priority over the other important matters to be discussed at the federal-provincial conference next week, is it the intention of the government to comply with this request?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, we have already complied with this request. If the hon. gentleman would look at the agenda that we have tabled, he would see that the matter of distribution of powers has a high place on the agenda and that within distribution of powers we specify fiscal matters and the spending power of the federal government.
I think it is important for the public to understand that the constitutional aspects of the spending power are really the ones that should be discussed. When the provinces are worried about the federal government's interfering-as they say-in certain provincial priorities, what they are really doing is calling into question the spending power as exercised for 100 years by the federal government. We are prepared to reopen discussion on this if and when the provinces want, except that we do believe that it is essentially a constitutional matter. We also believe that the provincial demands for discussing this matter can fit very easily within the agenda, which has been modified since November, to answer this demand by certain provinces.
Inquiries of the Ministry


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, before I ask a supplementary question I would point out to the Prime Minister that naturally it was impossible for me to know what priority would be given-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: -to economic matters because the program has just been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask his question.



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the government to comply with the request of provincial premiers that the Official Languages Bill be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada to test the constitutionality of several important parts of the bill?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: On this, Mr. Speaker, we have already complied with the request of some provinces, that we de not proceed with the bill in the house until the federal-provincial conference. This compliance caused us to retard our intention to proceed with the bill last December and we have since kept postponing it. As the hon. member knows, the bill is ready and has been brought in for first reading. We are postponing consideration of it by the house until the federal-provincial conference, which is now only a week away.
Although we will hear further argument by the provinces, it is our hope that they will continue to give to the language question that amount of priority we all agreed to give it last February, and that there will be no objection to our proceeding with this bill, which we think is of extreme priority. If the provinces have some objection to a specific section of the bill, we would want to consider it; if there is no agreement then there is the possibility of the matter being referred to the house.
Replying to the hon. member's remark, I might add that I realize it is through no fault of his that the agenda could not be tabled until now. We had to wait until agreement was reached on the tabling date.

February 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



BOX CARS TO FACILITATE SHIPMENT

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Cenlre):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this. Will the Prime Minister and the government give favourable consideration to the request of the western premiers for the appointment of a transport commissioner who would allocate box cars in order to try to improve the present situation in the shipments of wheat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure that the hon. member has asked a supplementary question, but the Prime Minister, if he wishes to, might reply.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker; I do not think this is a supplementary question. Certainly, it is not a matter to be raised at a constitutional conference. The hon. member might address this matter to the Minister of Transport, when it is that minister's turn to be in the house.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question similar to the one just raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Harkness). Despite the Prime Minister's suggestion that the matter ought to be referred to the Minister of Transport may I raise the question again. Since a telegram is alleged to have been sent to the Prime Minister by the premiers of the three prairie provinces asking for the appointment of a controller of transport, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he in fact received such a telegram and, if so, what answer he has given to it or intends to give to it?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I received several telegrams this morning and I believe they all had to do with the economic matter raised by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I sent out some telegrams to the premiers today asking permission to table the correspondence between them and myself on the agenda of the conference. I should add, too, that I will be answering their other telegrams as soon as I have had time to consider them.


David Lewis: Am I to gather from the right hon. gentleman's answer that he has not yet seen the telegram I have referred to-the telegram that is alleged to have been sent to him? May I put the question this way, Mr. Speaker. In view of the seriousness of the situation can the Prime Minister inform the house whether he has turned his attention

and the authority of his office to an attempt to solve the serious problem facing western grain on the west coast. If he has not considered the matter hitherto, will he undertake to do so immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that when telegrams come in from premiers they are immediately directed to the departments of the ministers concerned. This has been done in the case of the Department of Transport. As for the aspect concerning constitutional matters, I have answered that already.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister
doesn't deal with telegrams himself.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why do you think we have
ministers.


Mr. Baldwin:: We don't know, I am sure.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the Prime Minister's answer to the question asked about a controller of transport and considering that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has gone out to the west coast, may we ask if the Japanese ships now waiting in Vancouver will continue to wait for the loading of the 117,000 tons of wheat they are to carry. Also, can the Prime Minister assure the house that this market for wheat will not go to Australia?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is on the west coast today. I do not know that he is personally overseeing the loading of the ships, but he is out there to deal with this problem.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport that a considerable quantity of No. 1 wheat is on hand in Vancouver. Perhaps the Japanese food agency might accept that wheat, instead of No. 2. That way we will not lose that market.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the attention of the minister to this point. I am glad to see that, contrary to the opinion of the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member thinks that some tasks can be performed by ministers. I do not think I will need to go out to the west coast myself to perform this task.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the Prime Minister been advised of
February 3, 1969

the fact that Japan has cancelled its order of wheat, due to the fact that Canada seems unable to supply the wheat to Japan that is required.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Following the numerous complaints we are receiving regarding the closing of post offices, could the minister tell us whether he thinks rural mail delivery replace advantageously the post offices which have been closed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for an opinion from the Postmaster General and I do not think his question is acceptable.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: I would direct my question to the Prime Minister. My question is in connection with a news report today to the effect that communist China is willing to have talks in Cairo on the question of recognition, provided Canada cuts off diplomatic relations with the republic of China. I ask the Prime Minister whether that is so, or whether he intends to carry out the undertaking he gave on March 5, 1968. He said in Vineland, Ontario that an invitation would be given to recognize communist China, and stated "They would probably say no unless we agreed to break relations with Taiwan. We wouldn't do that."


Mitchell William Sharp: May I answer the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker?


John George Diefenbaker: I want the Prime Minister to answer.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no substance whatever to the news report. There has been no contact anywhere in the world with the People's
Inquiries of the Ministry Republic of China. This report is quite unfounded.


John George Diefenbaker: Whether unfounded or not, will the government of Canada carry out the undertaking given by the Prime Minister, that if communist China insists on discontinuance of relations by Canada with Taiwan-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -will the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The supplementary question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert appears to be hypothetical, in view of the reply given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I very seldom rise. With deference, this time I do. It all depends where the punctuation is, if it is in the right place. What I am asking the government is this: are they going to keep the undertaking that was given by both the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs that there would be no breaking of relations with Taiwan as a condition for the recognition of communist China?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, Diefenbaker:: The Prime Minister
should answer it.


George Harris Hees: We want you.


An hon. Member:: There's no election; it doesn't matter who answers.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question which is in issue of course is who speaks for the government of China?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Who speaks for the government of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: There is no question about who speaks for the government of Canada: It is the Prime Minister.


George Harris Hees: Well let him speak.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I deal with the question asked by the right hon. member. The question of the hon. member is, which government of China do we recognize?


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.

February 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mitchell William Sharp: The question is this, if we recognize the People's Republic of China as the government of China, will Taiwan accept that position?


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, did he on May 19 last say this: "We won't sacrifice our relations with the government of Taiwan to do it."?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: In other words, to recognize-


George Harris Hees: Did you say it or not?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure of the right hon. member's punctuation, but I have the impression that when he asked the minister to confirm or deny a statement made outside the house-


George Harris Hees: Let's hear from the Prime Minister!


John George Diefenbaker: I will reword my question. Does the minister still believe and agree there should be no recognition of communist China, if as a condition there is going to be any sacrifice of the government of Taiwan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said before-


John George Diefenbaker: Which is nothing.


Mitchell William Sharp: -that if the government does recognize the People's Republic of China as the government of China, relations between Taipei and Canada will of course be affected, since the government of the republic of China does claim jurisdiction over the whole of China, and we cannot have two conflicting authorities.


John George Diefenbaker: Who is going to be sacrificed?


Gerald William Baldwin: Can the
minister assure the house that no substantial discussions will be entered into unless there is an assurance from the Peoples' Republic of China that there will be adherence to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. There are many countries with which we have very good relations that, unfortunately, have not yet adhered to that treaty.



HOUSING


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On Wednesday last the Minister of Transport tabled the report of the task force on housing and stated he would shortly place before the government what he regarded to be urgent recommendations arising out of that report. Can the Prime Minister tell the house how soon we can expect a statement from the government on this matter?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Transport who is responsible for housing did state that he would submit to cabinet a memorandum which would express his views as to what should be done and in what sequence. He has not done that yet. He is working on it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Can the Prime Minister say whether the government is at present considering the recommendation as to a minister responsible for housing?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that this task force report will be translated by the Minister of Transport into a document to be submitted to cabinet, expressing his policy as he wants it considered by cabinet at this time.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Is the minister prepared to make the necessary changes in the Canadian consumer council, in light of critical remarks made by the chairman of that recently formed advisory council, wherein he said, "The 24 members-"


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member must ask his question directly. He cannot quote a statement made outside the house in order to advance a proposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will rephrase my question. Does the minister plan to change the make-up of the council, in light of the criticism of its chairman?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.
February 3. 1969


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not agree, because of the critical remarks of the chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: The supplementary question is argumentative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the government extend to Jews of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Egypt privileges similar to those granted to the refugees from the invasion of Czechoslovakia ?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we have
received representations on this question from various individuals, and these are under consideration. I am informed today that the Canadian Jewish Congress will be making some formal representations which will receive serious consideration.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Can the
Minister of Veterans Affairs advise when he or the government intends to take action on the recommendations of the Woods Committee report respecting the organization and work of the Canadian Pension Commission? Can he say when he intends to refer this report to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am very pleased to advise the hon. member and the house that at the present time we are preparing a white paper respecting veterans pensions and the Woods committee recommendations. This white paper is being given high priority and we expect later on this session to be able to refer both the white paper and the Woods Committee report to the House of Commons committee.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Prime Minister. Has an actual or tentative agreement been reached with Zambia for Canada to supply that country with military training instructors and other defence help?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been an agreement in existence for some time whereby we do extend certain training facilities to Zambia and to the Zambian army.


Douglas Scott Harkness: As a supplementary question, at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers Conference did the Prime Minister discuss this matter with the Prime Minister of Zambia, and assure him of further or increased support along this line?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the matter was not discussed, and I shall have to check my own memory as to whether it is Zambia or Tanzania with whom we have this agreement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I should refer again to the question asked me by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. I said I would check my memory. I have checked my memory and the answer is that there is no agreement with Zambia. I also remember that I have not discussed that subject with the President of Zambia.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERMANENT SECRETARIAT

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. On the agenda he tabled a few moments ago concerning the Federal-Provincial Conference next week there is an item called "mechanism of federal-provincial relations." Does this envisage discussions for the establishment of a permanent federal-provincial secretariat based in Ottawa?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the general subject of the mechanism of federal-provincial relations is one of the subjects on the agenda.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is obvious, Mr. Speaker, but I am asking whether the federal government would propose the establishment of a permanent federal-provincial secretariat based in Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When I spoke of machinery, Mr. Speaker, I of course covered that subject; but there will be mention of that. There will

February 3, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry be some suggestion of it because, as I say, it is covered in the agenda. It is not, however, one of the subjects that has been studied in detail by the continuing committee of officials and therefore it will not take a high place on the agenda.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I notice it is the last item on the agenda.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether he is now in a position to answer my question of last Thursday, and perhaps comment further on my question of last Monday. On Thursday I asked him about Manitoba, the government of which has announced that optometric and chiropractic services will be included in its medicare program. Is the federal government participating in this phase of the program, and what is the present status of these other services under the medicare act?


John Carr Munro: As far as I am aware, Mr. Speaker, there is not the degree of consensus that is required between the federal government and the provincial governments to widen the coverage of services under the medicare act. I would also say, certainly as far as the federal government is concerned, that our priority would be to get as many provinces as possible into medicare under its present terms.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can
the minister answer the question about Manitoba? Is the federal government going to participate in that part of the program in Manitoba?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten
o'clock.



ATLANTIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Development to be. On January 27 the minister said that the role of the Atlantic Development Board would be changed. Can he say whether the present functions and responsibilities of this board

will continue to be assumed by any newly structured body?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the bill is introduced in the house, the hon. member will see what new powers are granted to the Atlantic Development Board.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I should first ask when we can expect the legislation, but that is a redundant question. Can the minister assure us that the present functions in relation to research and education assumed by the A.D.B. will continue to be assumed, held constant, or increased?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the second question asked by the hon. member has been answered by the minister.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind the substantial evidence given by distinguished writers, economists and educators, showing the positive correlation between national economic development and human resource development can the Prime Minister say whether the federal government intends to expand its role in human resource development?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think the hon. member's second supplementary question is wide in its scope and is the type which asks for a policy statement. I suggest to him that it should not be asked at this time.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rephrase my question and ask whether attention will be focused on the role of the federal government in human resource development at the impending federal provincial conference? I am sorry I do not have access to the agenda.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the subject of regional disparities and regional development is one item on the agenda to which we attach great importance.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my question was misinterpreted by the Prime Minister. It was with relation to human resource development, not regional development. It is an important matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: It must be, to justify all these questions.
February 3. 1969


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, earlier during the question period I asked the Prime Minister about the focus of federal attention on human resources development and he apparently was preparing an answer. I wonder whether it might be forthcoming at the moment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is right, Mr. Speaker. I was considering an answer but I do not think the hon. member will find it very helpful. Human resources in so far as they concern educational matters are mainly within the jurisdiction of the provinces. There is an item on the agenda that is concerned with the division of powers between the federal and provincial governments, and to this extent we will be considering the subject; but it will not be a subject of immediate concern.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister gets a few spare moments I will be glad to coach him on some of the latest authorities in the field of education. Perhaps he could advise-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the decline in the groundfish resources in the North Atlantic, is it the minister's intention to convene an early conference on the law of the sea in order to discuss the conservation of fishing resources at the international level with other fishing countries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that such a conference may shortly be organized. There are a number of countries that have the same concern as we have about this. I cannot say for certain whether it relates specifically to the Atlantic ocean, but I know that on the Pacific ocean there has been a great deal of concern. It may be a conference dealing with all the oceans.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the minister giving any thought to placing the matter of world fishing conservation problems on the agenda of the United Nations, with a view to inviting the
Inquiries of the Ministry United Nations to be responsible for the control and development of all fisheries on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: I will certainly take this suggestion into consideration. At the last meeting of the General Assembly questions about the law of the sea and general resource conservation were very high on the agenda, and I shall take this into account for the next meeting of the General Assembly.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Postmaster General, whom I welcome back from his peripatetic seminar. Is he now in a position to say whether the government is any closer than it was last week to resolving the points of dispute with the Letter Carriers Union?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to make a statement on that subject at the moment because I am having a meeting tomorrow with the presidents of the national unions.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As a supplementary question, in light of protests by the leader of one of the important political parties in Ontario that his party's publication will be "walloped" by increased postal rates, and in light of similar protests by the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture will the minister say whether he is giving consideration to proposing a downward revision of the rates due to be imposed on April 1?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the answer to that is no.



EFFECT OF RATE CHANGES ON NON-PROFIT PUBLICATIONS

Mr. Mac T. McCufcheon (Lambton-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Postmaster General what action if any the government intends to take to ensure that nonprofit publications do not become the unintended victims of government action to increase postal rates?


Eric William Kierans: Mr. Speaker, I think all of us who have nonprofit organizations particularly at heart will be aware of the fact that their deficits or costs will be going up somewhat, and we will be prepared to take this into consideration when we furnish our support individually.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADA CORPORATIONS ACT



DICKERSON REPORT RESPECTING CHANGES IN ACT

Mr. John Burion (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has the task force headed by Professor Robert Dickerson reported to the minister with respect to its recommendations for changes in the Canada Corporations Act and can he state whether the report of the task force will be made public?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubts as to the urgency of the question asked by the hon. member, but having been asked perhaps the minister might want to reply to it.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, Professor Dickerson has made a report to me. He is still working for me on recommendations for further revisions of the Corporations Act. What will be made public are the amendments to the Corporations Act, which will be tabled in the house.


John Stratford Burton: Is the minister prepared to make available the names of the team of experienced businessmen and lawyers who have been asked to comment on proposed changes to the act as reported in the Financial Post of January 6?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question should bo placed on the order paper.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Would he say to the house whether the government intends to co-operate with Quebec, if the latter decided to continue the operation of "Man and His World"?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: It seems rather hypothetical to me, Mr. Speaker, but if such was the decision of Quebec, we would surely be ready to consider the matter with them.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. 
February 3, 1969
Prime Minister and it is the same one I attempted to ask him last week. I spent the weekend revising it. Will the government be proceeding with the construction of the Northumberland Strait Crossing, and in answering I wish the Prime Minister would please not beat around the bush.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did not work hard enough.


Melvin James McQuaid: I wonder whether I might try once more, Mr. Speaker? I now ask the Prime Minister whether the government will be proceeding with the construction of the Northumberland Strait Crossing?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, there will be a policy announcement on this in due course.



SHIPPING


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport, the first and second acting ministers, and the fact that I will be absent tomorrow I wonder whether I may leave this important question with someone. Has the federal government any responsibility for the Greek freighter at Saint John, New Brunswick, the crew of which has no heat, no food, no water and no money, and they are nearly all sick? If it does have a responsibility, what is the federal government doing about it?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: It has been left with someone, Mr. Speaker.



THE GOVERNOR GENERAL


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, arising out of a press release issued by the Prime Minister to the effect that His Excellency the Governor General will be making what are described as state visits to Jamaica, Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Her Majesty's consent has been given to these state visits, in view of the fact that the Governor General exists constitutionally only because there is a Queen to be represented?

February 3, 1969


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I communicated with the Queen, I believe a week or two ago, to ask her consent, and I assume consent has been given. I will check on that. It certainly will be given-it most likely will be given before the Governor General departs.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, he cannot depart without it.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question.
As some provincial premiers have done, has he accepted to become a member of the Canadian loyalist movement?



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: Mr. Speaker, alluding to my hon. friend across the house, I have not had the weekend to prepare this question but I have had a week of forty below zero weather to think about it. Recognizing that it is not possible for the Prime Minister to accept the invitation of Duncan Pryde, a Northwest Territories councillor, to spend three to four months touring the Northwest Territories by dogteam to visit Eskimo settlements, would he consider making such a visit if a route were mapped out which would take only four to five days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, will the Ministry of Forestry and Rural Development advise whether he has had conversations today with the Premier of Prince Edward Island regarding the economic plans and has he, hopefully, an announcement in this regard?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I met the premier of Prince Edward Island.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TELEVISION


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, before you call orders of the day perhaps I may ask the Secretary of State how soon it is expected that a decision will be made by the Canadian Radio Television Commission into applications for community antenna licences in the town of Sudbury and other areas?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure this matter is one of urgency, and I should think the matter might be placed on the order paper or debated at the time of adjournment.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Gerald William Baldwin: That clause 10 be added as follows:
10. The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section:
13A. Any regulation, order or direction made under this act shall be filed with and considered by the standing committee of the House of Commons on Transport and Communications within one year of coming into force."
He said: This amendment will be the precursor of a number of amendments of this nature which we in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition will have occasion to move in respect of legislative proposals such as that contained in the amendment to the Aeronautics Act. During this first parliament since the election of June 25, which began in September, we have passed a number of bills. An examination of these bills would indicate the extent to which this government is moving aggressively and with determination to take more and more rights from parliament by way of granting powers to the government, various tribunals and boards, to legislate, to enact enactments of a prohibitory nature and the penalties in this respect. During the

February 3, 1963
Aeronautics Act
course of this parliament we see this being done more and more. We intend to file a caveat that in our view the government has been going too far and too fast.
I shall not attempt to breach the rules, but in support of the hon. member's amendment and the valid reasons behind it I simply want to call the roll of the bills which have gone through this house, some of which have been passed by parliament and others being in various stages of the legislative machine, having been given second reading by the House of Commons. For example, the post office bill gave vast, new powers, and from an examination of the steps taken in the debate in the house indicated that the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans) already had very considerable powers to change postal rates and make variations and alterations in the vested rights of people. Almost half of what is proposed in the act to control pesticides, Bill C-154, is contained within the four corners of the regulatory sections. As a matter of fact, it has three sections dealing with regulations.
Then there are the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Farm Credit Act, the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act, the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. All these acts passed by the house provided that interest rates could be raised at the uncontrolled discretion of the Governor in Council. The Animal Contagious Diseases Act gives tremendous power to the Governor in Council in the fixing of individual compensation for people covered by the legislation. The C.N.R. financing bill for the first time gives to the Governor in Council the right to authorize the C.N.R. or any other national transportation corporation to float loans and arrange for the issue of securities. The bill before the house in respect of the Patent Act and the Trade Marks Act gives power to regulate the granting of licences to pharmaceutical manufacturers.
Let me make it quite plain that I am not quarrelling, nor would I be allowed to quarrel, with the issues and principles dealt with under these authorizations. But I am entitled to emphasize the fact that we are slowly, in some cases not too slowly, taking out of this house the legislative power which is our right and turning it over to the executive. It may well be that these matters are essential. It may well be that in certain cases this is a desirable course to take, though I am very doubtful about that. But surely it is about time the members of the House of Commons, the press and the public became aware of the

extent to which the bureaucracy, the establishment and the executive are filching from parliament, from this house, the very important rights which are ours and which should not be left to the uncontrolled discretion of government. I challenge the validity of such action, I challenge the right to do it, I challenge the soundness of a philosophy of this kind.
The official languages bill, for example, grants to the proposed commissioner of languages the most drastic and formidable powers with regard to holding hearings in or out of camera and enforcing the provisions of the act. The powers this official will be granted, if the legislation passes, are simply fantastic. We all know that under the Customs Tariff legislation many years ago this house gave away to a very considerable extent the traditional right to impose taxation. Under the freshwater fisheries bill we gave to the government the right to fix the interest rate. Another example of this erosion of the rights of members of parliament is the bill to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act with which we shall be dealing later.
With regard to the bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, we find, for example, that one clause proposed by the government, and which we seek to take care of by the amendment tabled by the hon. member for Oxford, would take from the Governor in Council and give to the Air Transport Commission the right to make regulations. The practice followed by the government in this respect follows precisely what was done against my objection and the objection of a great many members of this party at the time the transport act was passed.
At that time we gave the Canadian Transport Commission the right to enact regulations in a vast area and fix punitive penalties for the infringement of those regulations. As a matter of fact, we removed from parliament and gave to the Transport Commission almost exclusive jurisdiction in the very important field of transportation. Transportation is vitally important to this country and to members of the house. The very foundation of this nation was predicated upon transportation and communications system which would draw together the various parts of the country. By the National Transportation Act we gave away those powers to the commission. Now the government is asking us to do precisely the same thing with regard to a number of powers and rights which, quite improperly, we gave away earlier to the Governor in Council. Now the Governor in
February 3, 1969

Aeronautics Act
Council is saying: We do not want them; we are going to pass them on to an appointed body which will deal with these questions as it sees fit.
It is for this reason that we have proposed the amendment which will provide that all orders, regulations and decrees made under the provisions of the Aeronautics Act must be brought, within one year of the time they assume the force of law, before the standing committee which is charged by the rules of this house with dealing with matters of transportation. I point out to hon. members that we are not asking that these regulations, orders and decrees not become effective, or that the right to pass them be withheld in the sense that unless the house approves them they are invalid. We are simply saying that all orders and regulations should be filed with the appropriate committee and that committee must then consider them.
I have no doubt that 90 or 95 per cent of the decrees, orders and regulations will be of no particular interest to the committee. But we are asking that the committee have the right to take an interest if in the opinion of any member of this house or, in particular, of any member of the committee, there has been an attempt to encroach and trespass upon the rights of the individual. In that event this house must give effect to the rights of members who are here as protectors of the rights of the people of Canada.
It is in that sense that this amendment has been moved. I ask all hon. members to support it. It is a matter which affects hon. members who sit on the government side as well as those who sit on this side of the house. I ask hon. members: Are you prepared to give away, without any question, these rights to the establishment, to the bureaucracy? After all, governments come and governments go, but these people stay for ever. I am not challenging their bona fides or the fact that they may be good people, fully capable of discharging their responsibilities, but I suggest it is an unsound principle for an elective body such as this house aimlessly and carelessly to give away to the executive branch of government all the powers which are being asked for here and in other bills. If we do this we shall be further validating what the government has done in the past and will continue to ask the house to do in most of the legislative proposals with which we shall deal before the session is ended.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
I suggest to hon. members on the government side that an even greater responsibility rests upon them than upon members of the opposition. If they are content to sit back quietly and acquiesce in this discharge of their responsibilities and in handing them over to the government, they are the people who will have to answer for it later. It is in that sense this amendment is moved, and I would request the co-operation and the support of hon. members in giving effect to it.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to ask whether the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would accept one or two questions on his remarks.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will answer them as well as I can on behalf of the hon. member for Oxford.


David Lewis: I would like to ask the hon. member two questions which I will put into one to save time. First, what is the reason for the term "one year of coming into force"? I ask that question because if there is validity in what the hon. member has said, then obviously it becomes pretty difficult to undo something which the regulation has brought into effect. If it has been in effect for some months and certain procedures have been established pursuant to the regulation and certain practices have become a habit, it would be pretty difficult to do something about it a year later.
Second, I would like to know from the hon. member whether this amendment really says anything more than that there would be automatic reference of any regulation, order or direction to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications in this case. The amendment says they will be filed with and considered by the standing committee. Am I right in thinking that what in effect this amendment does is to provide for automatic reference to the committee of each order, regulation and direction passed under the act? Whether or not the committee wants to deal with it is up to the committee to decide, but they are referered to it automatically.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is my understanding it is the intention in the minds of those who propose the amendment that there would be an automatic reference to the committee of all orders and regulations passed and that the committee itself no doubt would ab initio, then take the right to consider them within the committee, or possibly as the result of

February 3, 1969
Aeronautics Act
prompting by other members of the house who might bring various cases to their attention. That is why I said earlier in my remarks that in my opinion only a small percentage of the actual orders and regulations which were filed would in fact be dealt with by the committee.
As to the question of the term of one year, my understanding is that we are not suggesting in this case that the legality of the regulations and orders would be in issue, as is the case in certain jurisdictions where it is provided that orders in council and regulations of a certain type must be submitted to the legislative body within a certain number of months or days after that body resumes its sittings and that these regulations are then null and void unless concurred in by the legislative body. What we are suggesting here is the right to examine and review them. Out of the committee's studies recommendations could presumably come to the house. From then on it would be a matter for the government to consider. I believe the term of a year was selected because in many instances some time may elapse between the time these regulations are first brought to the attention of individual members and the time and the committee has an opportunity to consider them properly, to make inquiries and then to draft and make its recommendations to the house. I understand that is the reason behind the selection of a year as the period of time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the principle embodied in this amendment. In the general passage of the Aeronautics Act and the National Transportation Act the house gave the Canadian Transport Commission certain powers. For years now I have objected to the giving of blank cheques with regard to the power to make regulations without anyone being required to come back to this house to account for these regulations.
This is an area where the commission can do almost what it wants without having to give an accounting or being called to state its case as to why it is doing certain things. I say, in support of what was said by my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), that this has been done far too much by parliament over the past years. I say also that this provision should apply in particular to any independent commission or board even more than, say, to the Governor in Council. Under the Regulations Act the Governor in Council must publish in the Canada Gazette. and there are certain mechanics whereby

regulations published in the Canada Gazette may be laid before the house.
The government has accepted the principle of what I am saying since it has introduced amendments in the anti-dumping bill which I have been advocating precisely on these points. As an example I might cite clause 25 of the anti-dumping bill, Bill C-146, passed by this house and the other place. The act originally stated that the anti-dumping tribunal might, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council, make rules respecting the sittings and the procedure for making representations to the tribunal and generally the manner of conducting any business before the tribunal. However, as a result of the committee hearings and the arguments advanced, in which I took the lead, the government then proposed subsection (2), of section 25 which states:
Copies of all rules made pursuant to subsection 1 shall be laid before Parliament within fifteen days after the commencement of the session next ensuing after the making thereof.
The Governor in Council is also empowered under that act to make regulations, and these will be also brought before parliament and tabled. Last autumn it was accepted by the government and by the house that a special committee should be set up to look into delegated legislation. It is my view that this is precisely what that committee would aim for. The Aeronautics Act and the Transport Act delegate powers of regulation. Parliament must never lose control and when it has delegated powers to legislate by way of regulation there must be a means whereby those regulations come back to parliament for review. Therefore we must have this committee on delegated legislation, not that everything will stand in hiatus until approval has been given but so that there shall be a supervisory power. These commissions owe their existence to parliament and are accountable to parliament. But the government proposes legislation and we give powers to certain bodies which are no longer held accountable to parliament. That is wholly contrary to our system of government.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I certainly support the spirit of the amendment and I urge it upon all hon. members, particularly those on the government side. Perhaps I would have worded the motion differently inasmuch as I would prefer that any rules and regulations made by the commission should be tabled by the appropriate
February 3, 1969

minister within a certain time. As to the principle, however, the government itself has accepted it in legislation put forward this year, and I believe that if hon. members would reflect upon it they would see that what we are asking for is legitimate.


Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am virtually in full agreement with the position taken by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) and by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It can certainly be said that in recent years there has been growing concern, not only in parliament but among all those who follow parliamentary affairs, about the way in which statutory instruments and regulations are proliferating in number.
The question is often asked: what procedures can parliament adopt so as to maintain effective control over the number and nature of the various statutory instruments and regulations which are passed by the executive branch of government? I have heard it argued that if this amendment were passed and all regulations established by order in council were referred to a standing committee, that committee would find itself saddled with a very heavy workload indeed. But it seems to me that if the volume of these regulations is as large as has been indicated, there is a clear responsibility on the part of hon. members to buckle down and wade through them.
It is not enough that there should be a procedure by which regulations are tabled in parliament within a certain number of days after the opening of a session. When hundreds or even thousands of regulations are tabled together, the likelihood is that none of them will be studied and analysed in a satisfactory way. In my view it would be a much more effective procedure if each department of government which establishes regulations were responsible for seeing that they were referred to the appropriate standing committees of this house.
The amendment before us appears to be an attempt to deal with a longstanding problem which has become increasingly serious during the past decade. I have tried to think of arguments which could be advanced in opposition to the proposed amendment, but I confess I cannot think of any.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: intend to be brief, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the minister a question. He may not have the information before him now, but the answer 29180-320
Aeronautics Act
goes to the root of the trouble which the amendment is trying to cure.
As the hon. gentleman knows, the real substance of our legislation is determined by orders in council and by regulations made after this house has dealt with the matters of principle concerned. Sometimes, indeed, Members of Parliament find themselves confused, when they see the regulations, about what they really voted for. Most of these regulations are drawn up by advisers of the government, officials within the public service. The question I want to ask the minister is: does he know how many thousands of regulations have been approved in the past year-regulations which really amount to legislation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think I should remind hon. members that we are not in committee of the whole, and that we should not engage in the type of discussion appropriate to a committee of the whole. My understanding is that there should be speeches of the kind ordinarily made while the Speaker is in the chair. The hon. member for Calgary North is asking for information which the minister can give as part of his speech, but according to our rules the minister can speak only once; he might answer all these questions when he takes the floor.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not wish to make a lengthy speech, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I was content simply to direct a question to the minister. I shall be quite satisfied to get the information when the hon. gentleman replies.


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I have noted carefully the statement made by the hon. member for Peace River, particularly his reference to several bills which have been passed recently and his concern about the authority now being given to the executive branch of government. He named the Canadian Transport Commission and other bodies.
At this time, when we are dealing with a specific amendment, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to make further reference to this general topic. What I should like to do is to refer to the amendment which was placed on record in Votes and Proceedings for January 31. In this connection I feel I should first of all thank the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), although he is not in the house-


An hon. Member:: He is. At the back.

February 3, 1969
Aeronautics Act


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: He is only half here, as usual.


Gerald William Baldwin: Better than being all gone, like the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald).


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Way ahead of you, and all gone in that sense.


James Armstrong Richardson: I am glad the hon. member for Oxford has just taken his place. I was about to thank him for the careful study which he has given to Bill S-14, the purpose of which is to amend the Aeronautics Act. I wish to express the view of the government in relation to the proposed amendment to this bill which the hon. member has put forward as recorded in Votes and Proceedings No. 83 of January 31. The hon. member has proposed that a new clause be added as follows:
Any regulation, order or direction made under this Act shall be filed with and considered by the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Transport and Communications within one year of coming into force.
It seems to me the effect of this proposal would be that the officials concerned would be in direct communication with the standing committee, that they would in fact be sending material to the standing committee for its consideration. But my understanding is that a committee of the house can only consider matters referred to it by the house itself. In these circumstances I do not believe we should legislate as proposed by the hon. member.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, if I might-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure whether the hon. member is entitled to speak, someone else having moved the motion in his name, but no doubt he could make his remarks with the unanimous consent of the house. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed


Gerald William Baldwin: He can speak for me.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My remarks will be brief. The minister's objection as I understand it is of a technical nature; it is not directed to the substance of the motion. I cannot say I altogether follow his line of reasoning. It would, of course, clearly have to be the government, through one of its ministers, which would refer these regulations to the committee. I cannot follow the reasoning behind the minister's statement

that the commission would be in direct communication with a committee of the house. I think it goes without saying that anything of this nature would have to be referred formally to the committee by a minister, either the minister himself if he still occupies this present portfolio or his successor.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
If the minister had any objection to the substance of the amendment I might be able to follow his reasoning. As has been pointed out by other hon. members, the regulations will be made not by the minister but by the deputy minister or the Canadian Transport Commission. It is obvious that such regulations may cause a great deal of trouble in the course of a year. While it is true that any questions about regulations could be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada, this would be a pretty costly proceeding for the average person. It would be much simpler to change the regulations by referring them once a year to the house committee on transport and communications. If there were any objections to particular regulations, those objections could then be put forward by members of parliament to the committee. However, I am sure everybody else would agree to any technical change in the wording of the amendment to meet the minister's requirements, if he thought that were necessary.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put forward two reasons why the government thinks it unwise to accept the hon. member's amendment. The first was probably much in the mind of the seatmate of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), when he expressed his reservation about an amendment which he said-I believe I quote him exactly-he could not commend as such but could at least commend the spirit of it.
My first reason is with respect to the suggestion that these matters be referred specifically to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of the House of Commons. What the hon. member is really proposing is that we write into the statute, for all time, what the house normally does by way of an amendment to the Standing Orders. As hon. members know, we have recently gone through that process. Contrary to what is sometimes suggested, it is not necessary for parliament to change the Standing Orders; rather it is for the House of Commons to change its own Standing Orders.
February 3, 1969

As a result of the changes that were made recently to our Standing Orders, under Standing Order 65 the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications has been created. In view of the fact that the committee on procedure and organization is presently considering Standing Order 65 it is possible-certainly it is beyond mere quibble -that they may well wish to change the Standing Order again, perhaps to change the designation of this particular committee or to change its powers. Therefore, if we were to accept the hon. member's amendment we would need not only a decision of the house to amend the Standing Orders but would also have to bring in an amendment to the Aeronautics Act itself, which I suggest is really an absurd situation.
The hon. member for Edmonton West made reference to what was formerly Bill C-146 and is now the anti-dumping act in connection with the tabling in Parliament of certain papers to enable the house to dispose of them as it may wish. However, I do not think that the house should tie its hands in the matter of amending its own Standing Orders by the kind of amendment that the hon. member for Oxford has put forward.
My second reason for not accepting an amendment of this kind at this time can be deduced from the remarks made by the hon. member for Peace River. As the house knows, I moved a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River, to set up a special committee on statutory legislation to look into questions concerning statutory instruments and delegated legislation of the type referred to in the proposed amendment. I think the sounder course of action would be to permit that committee to continue its study of the question of statutory instruments and to make recommendations to the house as to how best this type of delegated legislation may be brought forward for the attention of members of parliament and, if thought desirable by that committee, for the attention of a particular standing committee.
I suggest that we should not prejudge the study that is presently being made by the special committee on delegated legislation, as this particular amendment would do. We should wait for the committee to report to the house whether we should make any structural changes across the board in our federal legislative system so that we can deal with all of these questions at once, rather than in this piecemeal and unsatisfactory manner.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope the house will reject the amendment.
29180-320J
Aeronautics Act


Mr. Aiken:: Would the minister accept a question? The Minister without Portfolio raised some technical objections to the wording of this amendment. Is the government prepared to support or to introduce an amendment which would meet the objection the minister has raised to the wording of this amendment but carrying out the spirit of the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Oxford?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will have to restate my argument again for the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken). I said that, as all hon. members opposite will acknowledge, the amendment as worded at the moment is badly drafted.
My second point was that we are now considering a procedure whereby statutory instruments of this kind may be brought under closer scrutiny by the house. I suggest to the hon. member that only this special committee can report to this house and make recommendations as to any general structural changes that affect the federal legislative system, and that therefore it would not be wise to make this kind of amendment piecemeal. The hon. member for Peace River stated that this was the precursor of a number of different amendments of this kind.
I share his concern over the fact that more and more power affecting the rights and privileges of people is being conferred on, if you like, a faceless bureaucracy that is beyond the criticism of this parliament. As I say, I share his concern in this regard. But it may well be that there are more effective ways of adopting a procedure in this parliament for dealing with the matter across the board, rather than accepting piecemeal amendments of this kind which, if accepted now might have to be later repealed and further amendments made to the Aeronautics Act when the committee reports.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I take it that the answer to my question is no?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would not try to explain it a third time to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
February 3, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act Mr. Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the amendment negatived.


Some hon. Members:: On division. Amendment (Mr. Nesbitt) negatived.


James Armstrong Richardson: That Bill S-14, an act to amend the Aeronautics Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on Wednesday, January 29, 1969, he concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to standing order 75, subsection (13), the said bill stands over for third reading at the next sitting of the house.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house proceeded to the consideration of Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That clause 1 be amended as follows:
Firstly, that proposed section lA(b) be deleted and the following substituted:
lA(b) "navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water not wholly situated within a province and not directly connected to a further canal or body of water situated in another province, created or altered as a result of the construction of any work.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
Secondly, that proposed Section 2(c)i be amended by adding thereto after the word "thereto" the following:
"constructed on a navigable water."
Thirdly, that proposed Section 2(c)iv be amended by adding after the word "navigation" the following:
"on a navigable water."
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reasons for moving these amendments to proposed sections 1A and 2(c) are twofold. They are for the purpose of clarifying a situation which has existed for a long time; in short, they are to clarify the term "navigable water". They are also introduced to try to prevent an attempted power grab on the part of the federal government of pieces of real estate that were never intended to come under the jurisdiction 
of the federal government. I am referring to farm ponds and the like. We were told in the committee that studied this bill that things like ponds would come within the purview of this legislation.
The term "navigable water" seems an express definition; yet the fact is that navigable waters are vaguely defined in the act, to say the least. To appreciate what I mean one must look at the British North America Act. Section 91, subsection 10, sets out that navigation and shipping come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government. Subsection 13 refers to "ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces." Subsection 9 refers to "beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island." Yet another subsection refers to waters. It is clear, therefore, that section 91 of the act does not clearly or precisely define the term "navigable waters". If the fathers of confederation had considered all waters navigable waters they would not have included specifically the words "ferries between a province and any British or foreign country or between two provinces". Neither would they have included subsection 9 which refers to "beacons, buoys, lighthouses, and Sable Island." It is clear, therefore, that the term "navigable water" was in some way limited in meaning.
It is also necessary to see what the fathers of confederation intended to say when the act was drawn up. At the time of confederation navigable waters were of greater importance to transportation in Canada than they are today. I doubt that in their wisdom the fathers of confederation, gray beards and all, could have seen into the future in the manner described in Lord Tennyson's poem "Locksley Hall" and foretold the great dams that would hold back water in populous parts of Canada. These structures have created large bodies of water and serve purposes of conservation. Conserving water and other resources was not a problem in 1867. Clearly, the fathers of confederation never envisaged that farm ponds, for instance, would come under the purview of the legislation. One must remember that when looking at the British North America Act.
There is also this question: what is navigable water? There have been a number of court decisions on the subject, but I shall not refer to them. Anyone can look up court records. To say the least, existing court decisions on the point are not decisive nor helpful.
February 3, 1969

When officials of the Department of Transport were before the committee and giving evidence they were as helpful as they could be but seemed unclear as to how to define navigable waters. Most of us agree, I think, that there is a difference between a body of water that is navigable and one that is not. For example, at one time the Thames River flowing through the city of London, Ontario, was navigable. Ships used it in 1890. At one time a steamer upset on the river and 90 people were drowned. Clearly, when that happened the Thames River must have been navigable. Now the river dries up in the summer months. Another example of a body of water that may be navigable at one time and not navigable at another is a body of water containing rapids. If the rapids can be eliminated logs can be floated down the river. The officials of the department define navigable water as any body of water on which you can float a raft, canoe, or anything else. While that may be a reasonable definition I do not think that the term "navigable" was ever intended to apply to waters on which you can float only a raft or canoe. The fact of the matter is that officials of the department themselves are not too sure of the effect of the amendments proposed by the minister.
I now refer to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 11 of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Friday, January 24 last. I quote as follows from page 191:


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: If that is correct, am I then to understand, because of the additions to this act which are before us at the moment, that a person who has a summer cottage on a lake would have to get permission from the minister to build an addition to his dock or something of that nature?


Mr.  J. Fortier@Legal Counsel, Department of Transport: Yes, if it is an important dock, but I do not think it is intended to cover all the small docks made up of a couple of planks.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: But if a person had a 30 foot
cruiser, and this is not uncommon nowadays in parts of Ontario and elsewhere, then that person would have to get permission to build a dock. For instance, this would apply to the Muskoka lakes?


Mr.  J. Fortier@Legal Counsel, Department of Transport: Yes, sir.


James Aloysius McGrath: And it could include a floating swimming platform as well?


Mr. Manning:: Yes, sir.
I need not take up the time of the house to show that officials of the Department of Transport, who presumably drafted the amendments for the minister, seem unsure of their effect. For example, Mr. Fortier, legal counsel for the Department of Transport said the amendments would apply to a dock if it

Navigable Waters Protection Act were an important dock. I do not know what that sentence means. Legislation is specifically spelled out. It is no use saying "I do not think it is intended to cover all the small docks." When one is drawing up regulations under the Navigable Waters Protection Act one must be clear. Regulations must be clearly drawn and clearly applicable, and it is far from certain that in the minds of the officials who will draw up the regulations these matters are clearly defined. As I said, the officials must be clear in their minds about the points the regulations are to cover. The minister seemed concerned about this matter because on page 193 of the same committee report we find the following:


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. Mr. Chairman, could I answer a question Mr. Nesbitt raised-I think it is of importance to all of us and I have tried to understand it in thinking about this act-in respect to small docks built on lakes. I do not think that there is going to be an initiative required by the builder: I do not think he is going to have to seek application to build an ordinary little dock any more than at present, but I would like confirmation of that to the committee from the officials.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is a pretty disturbing thing, Mr. Richardson.


James Armstrong Richardson: It was to me and I wanted to make certain that that was not the case. I would like to have a comment on that.
The minister seemed to have some doubt in his mind as to the effect of the proposed amendments. All this shows how well some of our committees which have been studying certain bills are functioning.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
There is another matter I wish to refer to. It is touched on in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 10, of Thursday, January 23 last. There is a brief reference I would like to make here. At page 190 I said:
The reason I asked in the first place is the question of what the federal government has jurisdiction over. Are you implying then that the federal government has jurisdiction over all waters on which anything can be floated, no matter how small?


Mr.   Ballinger@: This is correct, yes. I think the federal government has this as a result of the British North America Act where it has the authority for all matters relating to navigation on all bodies of water in Canada.
I do not want to spend time reading into the record of this house, but on other occasions it was pointed out this would include such bodies of water as farm ponds. I mentioned earlier that it was never intended by the British North America Act to give jurisdiction to the federal government over bodies
February 3, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act of water which were wholly within a province or unconnected with other bodies of water. No matter how one may interpret the terms of the B.N.A. Act, I think it becomes manifestly foolish to suggest it was ever in the minds of the fathers of confederation to include farm ponds and the like under the federal Department of Transport.
On the other hand, it is quite clear there must have been some doubts as to how far the federal government should proceed in this regard because of section 91 of the act and the various subsections to which I referred earlier. Navigable waters such as the Great Lakes, which are international, and the Saskatchewan River and the Ottawa River connecting two major provinces, would have to come under federal jurisdiction. But certainly it was never intended that every tiny creek or stream wholly within a province should come under the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
The word "navigable" has been defined in statutes although in some fields there have been disputes from time to time. A river could be navigable at one time in history but not at another because it might dry up. The question is: when is a body of water navigable and when is it not? According to the officials of the Department of Transport it is any body of water, no matter how small, on which anything can float. This covers everything. This is very simple from the viewpoint of the officials of the department.
The general public would be startled to find out they need permission from the Department of Transport in order to build a dock in front of a cottage on a lake such as Lake Scugog, Rice Lake or the Muskoka lakes which are in no way connected with other lakes or provinces. The minister says: we think things will remain the same. Why then Mr. Speaker, are these powers being sought?
I do not understand. The officials of the department were not helpful in explaining these matters. They were very uncertain about the effect of the legislation. This legislation at first appeared to be housekeeping legislation. The drafting of the legislation appears to have been hasty, vague and sloppy, with great powers being conferred on the federal government which I do not think were intended.
I suggest that the reasons for the amendment are obvious. The bill seeks to include all small bodies of water, even farm ponds, which were never intended to come within


the ambit of federal powers. The amendment is carefully worded and reads:
"navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water, not wholly situated within a province and not directly connected to a further canal or body of water situated in another province-
This is understandable and necessary for waterways such as the Rideau Canal system which, although wholly in the province of Ontario, clearly connects two bodies of water, one being the Ottawa River which divides two provinces and comes under federal jurisdiction. The Trent Canal connects two of the Great Lakes which are international bodies of water. In order to include these projects there would have to be reference made to connecting bodies of water although not directly connected. The reason for the amendment is obvious in the case of waterways such as the Thames, the Grand and various others where the waters have been dammed up to create conservation ponds or lakes, as they are called, and there is no way of moving out of these ponds by any vessel as defined by the act. There is no system of locks to get in and out of the lakes.
The amendment is related to section 92, subsection 10(c), of the British North America Act which states:
(c) Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the Parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
This refers to works such as dams and other construction.
When the fathers of confederation were framing section 92 of the act which gives rights to the provinces they realized that the definition of "works" might cause some trouble. The minister could perhaps clear up the question of what is navigable water and what is not by drawing up an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act stating that for the purpose of this act certain waters will be deemed to be navigable, such as the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence, Ottawa, Saskatchewan and Niagara Rivers. From time to time certain waters used for navigation purposes could be so designated by order in council. This might be a better way of doing it. I do not know. At the present time I cannot imagine why officials of the Department of Transport would want to seek jurisdiction over every little body of water and puddle in the country. I am surprised at this sort of thing finding its way into a statute.
February 3. 1969	COMMONS
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
There are many conservation projects in Ontario. I am sure all other provinces have administrative bodies dealing with conservation. These are creatures of the provinces. For example, the Upper Thames Authority, the Grand River Conservation Authority and others deal with the administration of dams, the use of water stored behind dams, and what is allowed on these waters. There is enough trouble already between municipalities and such conservation authorities. There is squabbling over the kinds of boats to be used on artificial lakes and over the speed they will travel at. When we have the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) also coming into the picture it will be a question of too many cooks spoiling the broth. Bring the minister in with all his officials and they can only compound the difficulties already existing between municipalities and conservation authorities.
I have been in this house long enough to know that often it is difficult for a government to accept amendments proposed from the other side. There is always the question of losing face even if proposed amendments make sense, but I hope the minister will accept this amendment because it would relieve his department of a great deal of responsiblity.
If a man builds a dock on a small lake and his neighbour does not like it, under the terms of this bill the neighbour can run to the Department of Transport to raise cain about the dock. One would need to be on good terms with the local D.O.T. officials if one wanted to build a dock.
I think the minister should be happy to be rid of the responsibility for a lot of little rivers. If his department felt it was necessary to bring certain bodies of water under the act he could do it by order in council, and in this instance I think that would be the best way. My amendment would relieve the minister and his department of the responsibility for farm ponds and little creeks and at the same time would in no way interfere with what really are the waters that must concern him and his department, namely, large bodies of water on which ships travel between countries, including all of the St. Lawrence Seaway and a number of big rivers in western Canada and elsewhere.
I assume the minister will not be prepared to accept my amendment but I submit he should introduce some amendment to clarify
DEBATES	5059
Navigable Waters Protection Act what is navigable water and what is not. His proposed amendments will create nothing but an administrative nightmare so far as many areas of Canada are concerned.
Giving the department responsibility over little bodies of water such as farm ponds and small inland lakes is simply to encourage spiteful actions between neighbours. If I do not like a dock that my neighbour is building, if I think he is building it out too far, I can go to the Department of Transport and complain. Nobody is suggesting that the minister should not have control over docks, floating platforms and other works on major arterial waters such as the St. Lawrence. My proposed amendment includes such control. But I am sure no one in the Department of Transport envisaged, as admitted by the officials who appeared before the committee, the taking over of every small farm pond, and administrative responsibility for private docks built by cottage owners on small lakes.
My purpose in proposing this amendment is not based on pride of authorship. It is to clear up an administrative mess. The officials of the department have told us that the proposed changes in the act will cover tiny bodies of water and docks. They said major, important docks, but they were not sure what that meant. Certainly the minister indicated some surprise that the proposed changes would cover small, local docks and floating platforms. My objective is to try to keep a great many of us, including the minister, out of administrative arguments between local authorities and the department.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) on his proposed amendment to Bill S-19. Normally I think amendments coming from the opposition parties are good but in my opinion this is an extremely foolish and far too restrictive amendment.
I do not think any hon. member is anxious to see the administration bogged down in arguments over ponds on farms or over the building of swimming pools, but all one has to do is read the hon. member's amendment to discover that a large number of very important bodies of water will be eliminated from the provisions of the act if his amendment is adopted. This is not the intention of the bill and I am quite sure it is not the intention of the government.
For example, many of the new works in the province of British Columbia which this
February 3, 1969

Navigable Waters Protection Act bill would bring under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act would be excluded if the amendment were passed. I do not think this is what we are trying to do. In an attempt to improve the legislation the hon. member proposes an exceedingly restrictive change. It would rule out most of the matters which the bill seeks to remedy.
The proposed new section lA(b) would bring under the provisions of the act canals and all artificial bodies of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work, and that is exactly what we want to do. In British Columbia we have had a recent series of dam constructions along the Columbia River and elsewhere. These would be included under the new section of the act. The amendment proposed by the hon. member for Oxford would eliminate all this. The amendment in the bill reads:
"navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water created or altered as a result of the construction of any work.
That would be thrown out and be replaced by these words:
-"navigable water" includes a canal and any other body of water not-
Mark that word-"not".
-wholly situated within a province and not directly connected to a further canal or body of water situated in another province, created or altered as a result of the construction of any work.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I suggest the amendment is very vague and will undo the very thing that we want done. We in the province of British Columbia are very desirous of bringing within the confines of the act the reservoir basins and so on behind the new dams which have recently been constructed. I suggest to the hon. member that if he reads the amendment carefully he will realize that he will be defeating this intent. Perhaps the minister will have a different interpretation of the amendment, but I am not satisfied with it. If it means what I am convinced it does, I have no other choice but to vote against it.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I object to this amendment for the simple reason that it complicates the present situation. We must not add to the difficulties involved in the sharing of jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments.

The proposed amendment reads in part as follows:
"navigable water" includes a canal and any body of water not wholly situated within a province and not directly connected to a further canal or body of water situated in another province, created or altered as a result of the construction of any work.
Since this amendment would complicate the matter to the point that we could not make it out, I am totally opposed to it. If, for instance, we start giving a definition of the waters situated within a province or another, we will end up connecting the waters of British Columbia to those of the province of Quebec and that is why I think the limitation which this amendment intends to establish cannot be justified.
Of course, the term "navigable water" is already quite clear since it means a place where there is maritime traffic, and I cannot see why we should through such an amendment make matters more complicated, when so often they are too complicated already.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I do not see any necessity at all for this amendment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, I am sorry to note that someone in my old Department of Transport has extended bureaucracy to a ridiculous extreme in drafting this legislation. As I understand the bill, if it passes in its present form it will require someone who has a summer cottage or a farm bordering upon water of any kind to get permission first from the federal government before building a dock, a swimming raft, diving platform or any structure whatsoever. I do not think this was the intent of the minister or the government. Surely they never intended to put such sweeping powers in the hands of government officials. This will put people who are law-abiding peaceful taxpayers in the position of having to go through the tangle of red tape and regulation to obtain permission from the federal government before making any such addition to their property.
It is my belief that the legislation before us is badly and loosely drafted, and that if it passes in its present form it will simply extend bureaucracy in its most ridiculous form. The power given to the federal government by this bill in this form is both unjustified and unnecessary. For that reason I intend to support the amendment proposed by
February 3, 1969

the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) on behalf of the official opposition.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the bill with relation not to acts of commission but of omission. During the transport committee hearings it came to light that the bill does not cover works of provincial governments or their agencies.
On the prairies and in the inland areas of this country very few works obstruct navigation as effectively as power dams. Hydroelectric authorities today have a vested interest as Crown corporations in right of the various provinces. Yet we have not purported in the legislation to try to control obstructions to navigation arising from power dams. This was a very serious problem to the province of Alberta when the Peace River development was taking place in northern British Columbia. Great concern was expressed about interference with the flow of water in the Peace River to Alberta and the Northwest Territories. Nothing could be done about that under federal jurisdiction.
In this day and age, with Crown corporations operating in commercial fields, I think it is incumbent upon the government to exercise its authority to protect the public not only from works of private enterprise but works of Crown corporations, and I seriously suggest to the government that it consider extending the act to cover the very serious problem that is being created.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I would like once again to thank the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) for the careful study he has given to Bill S-19 which amends the Navigable Waters Protection Act. I would like to comment on the proposals which he has made in the house today, and particularly on his amendment to the bill as it appears in Votes and Proceedings No. 83 of January 31.
It is not my intention to speak at length about the other matters he has raised because we dealt with them very thoroughly during the committee hearings. That, of course, is the primary purpose of standing committee meetings.
I know the hon. member is concerned, and I indicated that I share his concern, about small docks, diving platforms and that sort of thing, but these do not come within this act unless they obstruct navigation. That is the overriding consideration. I do not think that neighbours are going to get into fights unless 29180-321

Navigable Waters Protection Act someone is trying to build a dock far out into a body of water, which will in fact obstruct navigation. If it will obstruct navigation then an application would have to be made under the act. I think the concern is really unfounded so far as small private docks are concerned.
Speaking to the specific amendment, it is proposed that Section lA(b) be deleted and that a revised definition of "navigable water" be substituted. I believe it would not be wise to do this, primarily because the proposed definition of "navigable water" is too restrictive. This has been pointed out very forcibly and clearly by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding), supported by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte).
[DOT] (4:20 n.m.)
I believe that the definition of "navigable water" proposed in the amendment would mean that the Navigable Waters Protection Act would apply only to navigable waters which flow or are located in two provinces. This is really much too limited for the purposes of the act. The definition of "navigable water" as it now appears in the bill is more general in character and would make the act apply to navigable water located entirely within one province. It seems to me that the amendment proposed is contrary to the intent of the definition "navigable water" contained in the bill, and for that reason I do not believe the amendment can be accepted.
With reference to clause 2(c)(i), it does not appear necessary to add the words "constructed on a navigable water" as suggested in the amendment, primarily because the whole act is dealing with navigable water and the addition of these words would appear to be repetitious. Finally, with reference to the proposed amendment to clause 2(c)(iv), our view is that it is not necessary to add the words "on a navigable water" since navigation cannot take place except on a navigable water. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, as well as the points raised by other hon. members, this amendment cannot be accepted by the government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the said amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.

February 3, 1963
Canada Evidence Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my view the nays have it. I declare the amendment negatived.


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Negatived, on
division.
Amendment (Mr. Nesbitt) negatived.
Hon. James Richardson (for the Minister of
Transport) moved:
That Bill S-19, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.
Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 75, subsection 13, the said bill stands over for third reading at the next sitting of the house.



CANADA EVIDENCE ACT


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) moved: that Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Thursday, January 30, 1969, be concurred in.


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


Gerald William Baldwin: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Carried, on division. Motion (for concurrence) agreed to.


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that consideration be given to the motion for third reading of the bill.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, be read the third time and do pass.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner), I should like 
to thank all the members who sat on the committee on justice and legal affairs.
The minister has already had the opportunity of speaking to the House on the effects of the amendments proposed in this bill. The five proposed clauses were studied in detail by the committee on justice and legal affairs, where the minister himself dealt with each one of them.
It will have been noted that the unanimous report of the committee does not propose any change and I do not feel I need insist any further. Still, I shall review briefly the objectives of those five amendments.
The first is designed to facilitate the hearing of expert witnesses during trials; the second provides for more flexible cross-examination of the witnesses of one party; the third extends the definition of the word "Bank" to financial institutions; the fourth revises the rules on hearsay; finally, the fifth provides an honest solution to those problems which formerly arose from the form recognized for receiving oaths or solemn declarations.
In short, it modernizes the act with a view to promoting the achievement of a more just society.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in reference to clause 2 of the bill. The explanatory note reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to allow a party with leave of the court to cross-examine his own witness on a prior inconsistent statement made by him in writing, in order to enable the court to determine whether the witness is adverse.
I am a little concerned that the clause goes farther than the explanatory note, because it says:
Where the party producing a witness alleges that the witness made at other times a statement in writing-
It does not have to be proved. This point has come to mind recently, although I did mention it in the discussion on second reading. The provision means that if Crown counsel merely alleges that at another time John Brown made a different statement, he can have his own witness declared hostile and can cross-examine him. It is all right to bring the Canada Evidence Act up to date, but this question requires very careful consideration. The Crown may be having difficulty in proving some narcotics cases, and the Department of Justice may have merely handed this
February 3, 1969

provision to the minister without giving any-thought to it. If they did give any thought to it, they overlooked a problem that will arise.
When a person is charged with an indictable offence he is entitled to elect by whom he shall be tried. If he elects trial before a magistrate, the magistrate has jurisdiction to deal with the matter. The consent of the accused is required in this case. The accused may elect to have a preliminary hearing before a magistrate and trial in a high court before a judge and jury or a judge without a jury. In order to present at the trial the best possible case for his client, defence counsel cross-examines fully at the preliminary hearing in order to find out what is the Crown's case.
I should like to refer to a murder trial in which I was engaged in order to illustrate the point I am about to make. The police had obtained from the accused, who was charged with the murder of his wife, a confession. They had taken nine and a half hours to obtain a confession of 11 pages. The confession was made up of questions and answers, questions put by the policeman and answers given orally by the accused. After nine and a half hours the accused signed a statement which was declared admissible by the magistrate and by the trial judge.
a (4:30 p.m.)
The point I am making as to the credibility of the statement is that I noticed on reading the statement that nowhere had the police officer asked the accused: "Did you kill your wife?" One would have thought that in getting a statement through questions and answers this would be one of the questions the policeman would put to the accused. In crossexamination counsel asked: "Does this statement contain all the questions and all the answers material to the murder charge, the questions that were asked by the police officer and the answers given by the accused?" The police officer said "yes".
Then a question was asked by the defence counsel which would never be asked at a trial but which had to be put, namely: "Why was that question not put?" It should have been asked during a cross-examination which filled 11 pages and must have represented some kind of confession. The policeman answered: "I overlooked something. I did ask the accused that question but I forgot to write it in the statement and I forgot I asked him that question". The next question at the preliminary hearing asked by defence counsel was: "How many times did you ask that question?" 29180-3211
Canada Evidence Act
The policeman replied: "Once". He was then asked: "What was the answer?" That question would never be put before a jury because if the answer was "Yes, I stabbed or killed my wife" counsel would have hung his own client. I am not going to go into the answer that was given, but the answer given by the police officer differed from the one given at the time of the inquest.
Then defence counsel waited until the trial by jury started and asked the same question to build up the same set of facts, protected from incriminating his own client by the fact that he had sworn copies of the questions. Defence counsel asked: "Is everything that you asked the accused and everything the accused said in that statement?" The police officer, who was under oath at the preliminary hearing and whose memory failed him again or he did not know which side of the fence he was on, said: "Yes". Then he was asked: "Why did you not ask the accused 'did you kill your wife'?", to which he answered: "I forgot I did". It is a funny thing to forget. Then he was asked how many times he put the question, to which he said: "Once". So there was one answer at the inquest, one answer at the preliminary hearing, and a new answer before the jury. Of course the jury were not going to believe the police officer.


Gerald William Baldwin: It sounds like a cabinet minister.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The point I am making is that a preliminary hearing is basically a fishing trip to find out what case the Crown has. It provides an opportunity to get a statement as a result of questions asked by the defence which could not otherwise be provided. I repeat again that this measure gives the Crown too much power. I would have moved an amendment under the new rules but, as you have seen this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, the government have a majority and they are going to get this bill through the house. I had hoped that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) would be in the house on such as important piece of legislation which changes the rules of evidence and the rights of the citizens of this nation. It is possible that he is not in the house because of a previous speaking engagement, but if this is the case, then surely this bill should have been brought to the house at a time when the minister could be present.
This afternoon I counted the number of ministers present in the house during the oral question period. I say without any hesitation or reservation that it is a disgrace that this

February 3, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
government has so little concern tor the rights of the opposition that its members do not even bother to attend the sessions and to be here to answer questions. The Minister of Justice is not here. I say he should be here at this time, and although he is a friend of mine this is my criticism of him. I say that if he could not be here it was his job to make certain this bill would be postponed until it was convenient for him to grace this place with his presence.
The attitude of the government is evident not only in the work of the committees but in the House of Commons under the new rules which they talk about with great affection. I say that eventually this institution will become decadent. The Minister of Justice should have been here to answer my questions on this important matter with reference to the Canada Evidence Act, whether we are at the committee stage or third reading of the bill.
I hope that the house leader, who is not here either, will agree that in view of my submission this debate on third reading should be adjourned until such time as the Minister of Justice can be present to assure the house that the civil rights of the accused across this nation are protected. This morning I heard on the radio about the case of a man who was kept in jail for several months for having stolen the sum of $1.96. I agree with the Liberals who speak with great affection in committees of the house about the rights of the accused. All lawyers who have to do with this type of thing realize that there is a great injustice in this country in this regard. The Liberals will rubber stamp this section, but when they get back to practising law they will find out how important a piece of legislation was passed this afternoon. I have a responsibility to the Canadian Bar Association and to the citizens of this nation. I ask the house leader to let this matter stand until the Minister of Justice can be here to answer the questions I have raised.
I repeat that defence counsel, in order to find out the Crown's case, must cross-examine at the preliminary hearing. What this measure will mean is that if the defence counsel obtains a bad answer at the preliminary hearing the Crown can ask: "Did you make that statement, without having to apply to the court to have the witness treated as hostile. They have to allege some inconsistency. This is not left to the discretion of the court but to the discretion of one man, namely, Crown counsel. As the house knows,
IMr. Woolliams.]
Crown counsel, like other people, are affected by the environment they live in over the years.
I am glad that this bill came up for third reading so that I can raise this matter again. We do not have a chance to stop the government. They say they have a mandate. They are trying to tell us they had a mandate to bring in some of the changes to the Criminal Code and that they went to the people on those sections. I bet there was a quiet whispering campaign in some of the constituencies where there are people with certain religious beliefs and that certain sections of the Code were not too much emphasized so that some of the Liberals would be elected.
The Liberals never had a mandate to bring in this measure. It simply streamlines the Canada Evidence Act to serve the Crown so it can expedite its cases. It runs roughshod over the rights of citizens.


An hon. Member:: How about the just society?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: "The just society." I do not know what that means. It is one of those Madison Avenue pieces of propaganda.
I should like to hear from whoever is in authority. I see the leader of the house is back. This matter should wait until the minister is in his place. If ministers do not want to come here, let us lock the doors. Lock them now and say: Parliament is wasting time; send the members home with their $12,000 a year and their $6,000 expenses; get rid of the place, it is costing the nation too much; declare a dictatorship right now, because ministers will not come here to answer any questions or to speak in a debate.
I would like to have seen the Conservatives, when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister, treating this house with the contempt the Liberals are showing now. I should like to hear what Mr. Chevrier would have said, what Mr. Pickersgill would have said, what Mr. Pearson and Mr. Martin would have said. Boy, they would have told the government where to get off! How they would have debated it! And, talking of filibusters, they knew how to run one.
This is the kind of nonsense we have to contend with today. Gentlemen, I say this: for goodness' sake, let Liberal members who got elected from good constituencies in Canada rise up and speak, even if it is against their own party.
February 3, 1969


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know whether the points raised by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) are valid, but he certainly made the kind of case which it seems to me ought to be answered, preferably by a minister, and unless someone else is ready to speak, particularly someone from the government side, it seems to me the house might agree to adjourn the debate on this matter and go on to something else. I can, of course, find out whether the house wishes to adjourn the debate simply by moving that the debate on Bill S-3 be adjourned.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to answer the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the house agree that the parliamentary secretary may answer?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I want to hear from the minister. Why not the minister?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Unfortunately, the minister cannot be here-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. There is no agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would make this suggestion on a point of order. I do not want to see the parliamentary secretary prevented from giving an answer. If he can assure us that the minister will also speak on this clause I will ask the house to give consent for him to speak again.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give any assurance of that kind. Unfortunately, the minister cannot be here this afternoon because he is absent on official duty.
May I say I am very surprised that the hon. member should be adopting his present attitude because the bill was thoroughly discussed in the committee of which he is a member. I do not know whether he was present at the time, but this particular point was
Canada Evidence Act
explained by the officials. The answer is that clause 10 still remains in force. This clears up the difficulty raised by the hon. member.
Furthermore, the amendment results from requests received from the Manitoba and Saskatchewan subsections of the Criminal Bar Association. In addition, the Canadian Bar Association at its annual meeting on September 9, 1967, passed the following resolution:
Whereas there appear to be conflicting decisions as to whether a party may put to his witness a prior inconsistent statement until after a ruling of adverseness has been made by the court;
Resolved:
That section 9 of the Canada Evidence Act be amended to provide,
(a)	that by leave of the court a party might cross-examine his witness as to prior inconsistent written statements before a finding of adverseness;
(b)	that such examination might be used by the court in determining whether a witness is adverse.
In these circumstances I am surprised that the hon. member should have referred as he did to the Canadian Bar Association, this suggestion having been made by that Association.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is
the hon. member for Calgary North satisfied?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No, I am not.


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think my motion should be put. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert):
That the debate on the third reading of Bill S-3 be adjourned.
I hope the house will accept this motion so that we can have a statement from the minister on a later occasion.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with private members' business it is my duty, pursuant to standing order 40, to inform the house that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg)-Vocational Training-opportunities for unemployed to improve technical skills; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- External Affairs-satellites-exchange of letters between France and Quebec; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Serre)-Education-recommendations of the Franco-Ontari-an committee on cultural life.
It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, public bills.



NOTICES OF MOTIONS


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the immediate organization of a program of medical examination of all members of the Canadian Active Service Forces who were prisoners of war in World War II, who have not been medically examined within the past five years either by the active treatment services of the Department of Veterans Affairs or on its behalf or by the Canadian Pension Commission to ascertain the effects of privation, malnutrition, injury or ill treatment on such personnel even before complaint of illness, if any, so as to forestall the onslaught of many disabilities and to prevent much later suffering and expense.
He said: I might inform the house, Mr. Speaker, that I was prompted to put this motion on the order paper after consultation with many of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, particularly those in our veterans affairs caucus committee. I am aware there have been previous representations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube) on this subject, not only by veterans organizations and individual Members of Parliament
February 3, 1969

who have had to deal with this type of problem through correspondence with many of their constituents.
One of the main reasons for putting this motion on the order paper arises from conversation with the former minister of veterans affairs, now the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who has had experience not only as a prisoner of war and pensioner but has some idea of what we are trying to do. I would like for a moment to refer to correspondence between the hon. member for Edmonton West and the present Minister of Veterans Affairs. I do not have to say much about the letter sent to the minister on July 9, 1968, by the hon. member for Edmonton West, but perhaps to lay groundwork for further discussion on this motion I will read portions of both letters. In part the hon. member for Edmonton West stated:
On a number of occasions in the past I have spoken in the House and privately to your predecessor, about the advisability of now calling in all prisoners of war, save the so-called Hong Kong group for whom this has been done on a separate program, for a thorough physical examination. Many of these men are presently pensioners and their medical histories have been established by the Canadian Pension Commission. The great majority, however, have not been near doctors of the commission or of the departmental treatment services. So many of them should, for their own good and for the benefit of both the commission and your own officers. Long term effects of varying periods of privation and hardship (different than that of men who fought long hard battle campaigns) are at work and the results must be assessed.
He goes on to say:
Much valuable time has been lost as it is approaching 25 years since release.
He is referring to the former prisoners of war:
The fact that I was one of them and now have a limited pension entitlement should not blur my objectivity. I have discussed this at length with a number of ex-P.O.W. who generally share my views.
The minister replied that they were going to consider this matter. He said in part:
As you know, the Hong Kong survey was conducted by the medical advisory branch of the Canadian Pension Commission. It is generally agreed that during the period of their internment the Hong Kong prisoners were subjected to slave labour, maltreatment and starvation, and suffered from diseases not commonly known in Canada. As a result, they now have disabilities, the extent of which were not fully realized until revealed by the review.
I would add at this time that the same conditions, although possibly to a lesser
Prisoners of War Medical Examinations degree, apply to many of our veterans who were prisoners of war in Europe. The minister goes on to say:
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
From time to time there have been suggestions made to the Pension Commission by veterans and their organizations that prisoners of war from the European theatre of war be surveyed in the same manner as were the Hong Kong veterans. While the European prisoners of war suffered great privations, the commission has been able to assess with a great degree of accuracy the resulting disabilities-
I doubt that, Mr. Speaker.
-and accordingly it has been felt that there is not the same need for a review along the lines carried out in the case of the Hong Kong group.
With that statement I disagree. The minister goes on to say:
-the suggestion contained in the resolution passed at the Dominion convention of the Royal Canadian Legion outlines a slightly different procedure than that so far advocated. Your request is that all prisoners of war, aside from the Hong Kong veterans, be now given thorough medical examinations. Since this would include non-pensioners as well as pensioners, it could best be done by our treatment services, and I will ask them to consider the suggestion with a view to ascertaining the extent of the problem.
I hope the minister has consulted the treatment services branch of his department and that the result will be favourable. I say this because in many cases we have had requests for assistance from some of these men who were prisoners of war and who have no documentation as to their disabilities. On their release many prisoners of war were very glad to get home quickly and as a result of their urgency were not properly documented by our medical services at the time of their discharge.
Many of these men after their release felt they could go back into the stream of life, to their former vocations or into some new trade, and make a living for themselves and their families. We have received many briefs pointing out that some of them were not able to do this because the disabilities they suffered while prisoners of war have since shown up. Now they have difficulty establishing that their condition is the result of disability suffered during service to their country.
The nation has a national obligation to all of these men whether we admit it or not. Most of them were volunteers at the time that their country needed them. They dropped whatever they were doing and volunteered for service. Regretfully, I say, possibly the medical examination given to some of these
5068	COMMONS DEBATES	February 3. 1969
Prisoners of War Medical Examinations men when they were attested was not what we would have liked it to be, and now we get reports from the Canadian Pension Commission, when applicants apply for pensions, that the disabilies from which they are now suffering are of pre-enlistment origin. I do not see how the commission can make such a decision with the lack of evidence before it, since the medical examination at the time the men were attested was very scanty and in many cases did not detect >any disability.
I would also remind hon. members that we who have the privilege of sitting in this house representing the people of Canada have an additional obligation to see to it that our veterans are not just remembered on Remembrance Day for their services to their country but that they receive a square deal 365 days every year. This does not apply solely to the veterans for whom this plea is made. It applies to the families of the veterans, to the families of enlisted men who were prisoners of war and who are now suffering disability as a result of service to their country. We have an obligation and a responsibility to do what we can to further the desire of our country to look after our veterans.
The branches within the department have two responsibilities. Granted, one is to watch the pursestrings to see that no one gets a pension to which he is not entitled. However, I would say there is not enough emphasis given to the benefit of the doubt clause, section 70, about which we have heard so much. The other responsibility is to see that the country's obligation to those who served in the armed services is carried out.
To bring this matter a little closer home to members of the house, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say I know of several veterans on the House of Commons protective staff who are suffering because of their service to their country. For example, just the other day one member of the protective staff had a severe stroke. He is a disabled veteran. In fact ever since leaving the armed services he has lived with one lung. He thought he could carry on. However, because of chance, and maybe because of the nature of his duties, he suffered a stroke. He has been in receipt of only a 20 per cent disability pension stemming from his service to his country. Now his wife and children are going to suffer the consequences if he passes on, as many people do after suffering such attacks.
There are also other people serving on the protective staff who have nervous disorders which may or may not be as a result of service to their country, but we have ample

proof in briefs from various veterans organizations, complete with medical reports, to show that we in Canada and authorities in other countries are not yet aware of the results of spending a long time as a prisoner of war. I would like to read portions from some of these briefs but they contain some almost unpronounceable medical terms.
I am sure many hon. members will agree that the requests for assistance they receive from veterans fall into three categories. In this instance I am referring to late applicants who up until now have not made application to their country for a pension, those who are having difficulty in establishing that their present illnesses are attributable to war wounds.
This is very difficult in the case of what we call a good soldier. Most men who have served in the armed services know that a good soldier very seldom went on sick parade. If he could possibly walk he did not go on sick parade. I am not trying to belittle those who did get pensions, those who had complete medical reports, and I am not saying it was very easy for them to get pensions. But many men, no matter how ill they were, did not report to the M.O. unless they were carried there and forced to go to hospital. These are the people who are now having difficulty in establishing their right to the pensions that the people of this country promised them if they ever needed them. The people I am talking about are very proud. I know most hon. members must have a number of letters on their files from such persons.
The second category of request deals with the conditions of service under which men served, and the third relates to P.O.W.'s.
All of us know that when men were P.O.W.'s, particularly in the European theatre and I assume the same applies to other theatres, no medical records were kept of their disabilities and other troubles during the time they were P.O.W.'s. With respect to the Dieppe veterans I understand this covered a period of three and a half years. At the moment I am not referring to the Hong Kong prisoners who were looked after, perhaps not as well as we would have liked but I think they are quite satisfied with the treatment given them by the country they served. But there are a great number who were prisoners of war in the European theatre and who should get the assistance that the country promised them.
I could refer to many articles on this subject that have appeared in the press. I have a
February 3, 1969

large file on them but I do not want to take up the time of the house quoting them because I am sure someone on the government side will want time to reply.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I see the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs in the house. He may have something to say about this, and I know there are some members on this side of the house who want to say a few words. Let me refer to some of these articles which I have mentioned.
The first is from the Sault Ste. Marie Star dated May 7, 1966. The heading of the article is "Reneging on High Promises". Let me just read the -concluding paragraph:
It is hard to believe that, even twenty odd years after that period when nothing was too good for "the boys", Canadians in general can be complacent about this sort of reneging when it is brought to their attention.
Another article is taken from the Oshawa Times dated January 13, 1966. Again, I will just read the last paragraph:
None in Canada would quibble on the fact those veterans who remain deserve a new pension deal. As the Charlottetown Guardian says, the surprising thing is that they have been made to wait so long for it.
There are many articles which support this desire of the people of Canada. If those members of this house who are interested in the reason this motion was originally placed on the order paper want more support, let me refer to a brief presented to the committee on veterans' affairs by the national Dieppe Prisoner of War Association. I do not intend to read the brief, but the opening part reads:
The Dieppe raid, one of the most scaring engagements of the second world war took place on August 9, 1942.
Of the 5,000 Canadian troops who set out for the coastal town in Normandy only 2,000, mostly men who did not land, came back.
Records show that 1,946 men, most of them seriously wounded, were taken prisoner. It is also recorded that 72 of these men died in captivity.
The period of imprisonment for those who survived was approximately three years.
In 1953 the federal government established a war claims commission and named Mr. Justice Thane A. Campbell as chief commissioner.
In his report, Mr. Justice Campbell found that general maltreatment did exist in prisoner of war camps in Europe where Canadian troops were imprisoned and that extraordinary brutal treatment had been proved in many cases. The finding of the war claims commission resulted in granting almost equal awards to both Hong Kong and Dieppe prisoners of war.
DEBATES	5069
Prisoners of War Medical Examinations
The effects of imprisonment have for some years been a matter of grave concern to those Dieppe prisoners of war who still survive, and it is their hope that the government will instruct the standing committee on veterans' affairs to conduct an inquiry into their plight which is in so many ways identical to that of the Hong Kong prisoners.
Among these similarities are the prevalence of peptic ulcers, lumbar spine disabilities, nervous disorders and other problems commonly attributed to avitaminosis.
I am sure members are aware that a number of the staff of this house are among those referred to in this brief, which then states:
The Standing Committee on Veterans' Affairs have for some time known that the circumstances of the Dieppe prisoners of war should be reviewed along the lines of what has been done in the case of the Hong Kong prisoners.
That brief contains a number of recommendations, and sets out certain war conditions under which these prisoners of war existed. There are medical reports which indicate the actual disorders we can now look for in these former prisoners of war. All of us who know certain individuals who were prisoners of war can see signs of these disorders.
In order that this country live up to its responsibilities, I suggest that the minister or the chairman of the Committee on Veterans Affairs give serious consideration to this motion. I am sure the country would not begrudge the cost of this proposal. I understand that the amount of money given to all disabled veterans does not amount to any more than hon. members vote each year to the C.B.C. Were it not for the type of people who were prisoners of war there might not have been a Canada today, and perhaps there would not have been a C.B.C. There are some who might suggest we should have lost the war when we take this fact into consideration.
I am not aware of the number of veterans who might be called in under this survey. Perhaps some veteran or another member could provide that information. In any event, I do not think the number could be very great. It is the responsibility of all of us who have been elected by the people of Canada to see that this obligation is fulfilled.


Mr. Huberi Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) for bringing this matter to the attention of parliament, and for this excellent way of focusing attention on the needs, if needs exist, for the treatment of our prisoners of war. They certainly do merit special consideration.
February 3, 1969

Prisoners of War Medical Examinations
With reference to the Hong Kong prisoners of war referred to by the hon. member, the parliamentary Committee on Veterans Affairs recommended that this group receive special consideration. No group of Canadian prisoners of war have ever suffered from starvation, slave labour, general maltreatment, and diseases not commonly known in Canada as did the Hong Kong prisoners of war during the period of their internment. Some of the diseases and disabilities which the Hong Kong prisoners incurred were not fully understood until the review by Dr. Richardson was completed. In fact, this review revealed that these men suffered much more severe disabilities as a result of avitaminosis than previously assessed. Consequently, pension increases, in many cases quite substantial, were granted.
While it is true that prisoners held in the European theatre suffered many privations it has, nevertheless, been possible to assess with a great degree of accuracy the extent of the disabilities resulting from such privations. Furthermore, the study of the plight of the Hong Kong veterans has given the commission a much sounder basis from which to work in dealing with the assessment of disabilities incurred by all prisoners of war. Of course, it goes without saying that if conditions common among Hong Kong prisoners become manifest in other prisoners, the same consideration will be given. In the meantime, prisoners of war of whatever theatre are free to request re-examination at any time. If such an examination reveals that pensionable conditions have become worse then, of course, the pension would be increased.
Representations, on behalf of Canadians who were prisoners of war in Europe, and particularly those taken prisoner at Dieppe in August of 1942, have been under study intermittently for years. The evidence examined to date does not indicate residual disability comparable in kind or degree to that experienced by prisoners in Japanese hands. Tentative plans have been drafted for a more comprehensive study beginning with a review of the records and files of ex-European prisoners.
Dr. H. A. Richardson, the deputy chief medical advisor, has made a study in depth of the points raised in the brief alluded to by the hon. member. Those points have been very carefully considered by the medical advisory branch in recent years.
e (5:40 p.m.)
The evidence examined to date does not indicate residual disability in ex-European

prisoners of war comparable in kind or degree to that experienced by prisoners in Japanese hands. In other words, the prisoners in Japanese hands suffered privations which resulted in residual disabilities, such as avitaminosis, which are not apparent in any other group of ex-prisoners of war, and there is no evidence to establish that the European prisoners of war merit the type of survey which was conducted of the prisoners of war held by the Japanese. It is obvious that since these prisoners of war held by the Japanese obtained certain additional benefits as a result of the survey undertaken some years ago, the European prisoners of war are demanding the same type of survey in the hope that they will receive the same benefits. As Dr. Richardson points out, there is no evidence to indicate that they would be in any way entitled to the benefits granted the prisoners of war held by the Japanese or that such consideration is merited.
As everyone knows, prisoners of war have over the years been given special consideration by both the Canadian Pension Commission and the treatment services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. These ex-prisoners of war are still free to report for medical examination for any condition, at any time. At the moment, the medical advisory branch of the Canadian Pension Commission has drafted plans for a more comprehensive study of the files of all ex-European prisoners of war, and this will start with a review of a random sample of records.
Dr. Richardson has suggested that the possibility of having a survey conducted by persons not connected with the Canadian Pension Commission or the Department of Veterans Affairs might be considered. While the results of any such survey, with particular reference to pension payments and treatment, would have to be considered by both the treatment services and the medical advisory branch, such a study would nevertheless have the advantages of being undertaken by an independent group.
Our medical advisory branch has already concluded, from the information they have obtained to date, that the ex-European prisoners of war suffered no special disabilities other than those suffered by the regular serviceman who was exposed to normal combat conditions. Under the circumstances, it might be thought by this group that any report prepared by our own medical advisers might be prejudiced. In any case, such an independent survey would either support the opinion of our medical advisory branch or indicate that
February 3, 1969	COMMONS
it is not necessarily correct. Further action, if it is found to be necessary, will without question be taken.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, there are others who wish to take part in this very important debate. At one time I thought the hon. member who introduced the motion was going to talk it out himself. I would not wish to deprive other members, who are very anxious to participate in the debate, of the opportunity to do so. Again, I say that I am very pleased the hon. member saw fit to bring this motion to the attention of the house.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the first half hour this motion was before the house, a motion dealing with the veterans of Canada who gave so much in blood, sweat and sacrifice to their country, not one member of the cabinet nor parliamentary secretary was in the house. No member of the cabinet has since entered the chamber. At 5.30 one parliamentary secretary only, the parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), sat down, took no interest in the debate, and started reading something. This simply exemplifies the lack of interest of the Liberal government and Liberal members in the affairs of our veterans who gave their lives and blood for this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. That is not a point of order.

The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Sallsman:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appeal to the Chair to recognize a member from this party because of the importance of the motion that is before us. A distinguished member of the Progressive Conservative party introduced the motion and spoke to it. A Liberal member has spoken to it, and our party would like the opportunity of speaking to it, if this is at all possible.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I raise one small point here? Unless my memory is wrong, I am the only prisoner of war who is a member of this house. This motion deals with a subject which I have tried many times to put forward. There are a number of people who have done a great deal of work in this regard, and I should like to refer to them. If the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) can guarantee that he will
DEBATES	5071
Prisoners of War Medical Examinations leave me five minutes, that is fine; otherwise I shall ask that I be heard first.


Max Saltsman: I would be very pleased to keep my intervention down to about seven minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is fine.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member has placed a very important matter before the house and I congratulate him for so doing. We, in this party, wholeheartedly support the purpose and intent of his motion. Thinking back to my own war years and those following the war, I can recall how grateful the Canadian public seemed to be to those men and women who offered their services at a time when the country needed them most. I can also remember how full of goodwill and resolve were the Canadian public at that time to see that nothing but the best was done for those who returned, not so much because they deserved it in their own right but as recognition of what had been done.
We are really recognizing what our veterans did. It is like giving a medal to somebody. It is a form of recognition of those men and women who did not come back. This is one of the ways in which we can remember them. All of us can remember standing for two minutes of silence in the cold weather of Remembrance Day and thinking that if there was something we could do to honour the memory of those who did not return, we would do it. This is one such opportunity that I think the house should take to ensure that we honour the memory of those who did not return. We can do it by accepting this private member's motion.
I think it would establish a very important principle if, instead of waiting for a veteran to be so incapacitated that he had to come pleading to the Department of Veterans Affairs for assistance, we would help him before he had to crawl to us. I think this is important. If somebody comes pleading to you and you help him, it is not quite the same thing; you are in effect giving him charity. When you say, "We remember what you have done and will do what we can on your behalf," the principle is entirely different.
As has been pointed out, many veterans do not ask for help at the time an injury occurs to them. As a result 20 or 30 years later they find they have been damaged as a result of their war activities, but have no proof that the damage resulted from war service. This is very important, particularly if, as I think is
February 3, 1969
5072	COMMONS
Prisoners of War Medical Examinations the case, the Department of Veterans Affairs is wrong in its interpretation of the benefit of the doubt clause. We all know that there is very little benefit of the doubt given to our veterans. Those of us who have had to deal with veterans' problems know that a man must have almost incontestable proof his injury resulted from war service before he is eligible for assistance. The motion before us is one way of assisting the veteran in this regard, and it would be a more dignified way than we have adopted in the past. However, by accepting the principle of the motion we open the door to other things. Perhaps the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) will excuse me if I add some of my own ideas to the motion and say that we should go beyond what he requests. What we should be doing at this time is to provide a guaranteed annual income for all veterans. We are going to have a guaranteed annual income for the citizens of this country. I am certain of that, although it might be five or eight years from now. It would be a tragic thing if when that guaranteed annual income were established it was too late for those who fought in the wars. Let us have it now, and let us start with our veterans. Let us get rid of this benefit of doubt situation. Let us go beyond the prisoners of war, although I agree that the principle of starting there is a good and valid one. Let us recognize the great work that the sons and daughters of Canada did on behalf of their country and be generous, humane and grateful for their efforts.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion deals with a more limited number of men than might be seen at first blush. The purpose of it is to bring within medical survey those members of Canada's active armed forces during world war II who were prisoners of war and who have not, for one reason or another, been medically examined in the last five years by either the Canadian Pension Commission or someone on its behalf or by the treatment services of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The purpose of this motion is not to establish pensions for prisoners of war, but rather to do for some of them what was so needed for the Hong Kong prisoners of war. I will be the first one to admit that the degree of privation and malnutrition of European prisoners of war, except perhaps in the odd case, was not nearly as severe as it was in the case of the Hong Kong prisoners of war. It


took a lot of pushing and prodding by members of the opposition and by some members on the government side some three or four years ago to have all of those members of the Hong Kong force who could be located examined.
There is a rather ironic incident that was told to me by a member of that force who comes from Saskatchewan. I met him during the last election campaign. He said he was called in for an examination and he went to Regina to be examined to see whether he had suffered any disability as a result of having been in Japanese hands. Whom did he meet but a Japanese doctor who was acting on behalf of the Pension Commission. Sometimes some people just do not use their heads. It put both men in a very difficult position. I am sure that the doctor himself would not have willingly accepted that task if he had known what was going to happen. What this Hong Kong veteran said to me afterwards was not printable and certainly should not be repeated. He did not think much of the type of service that had been given to him.
The Dieppe Prisoner of War Association was organized by a former Royal Canadian Engineer, one of the real sluggers. This chap by the name of Sandy Shusterman is now a taxi driver in Toronto, and an indefatigable man working in the interest of prisoners of war. The Dieppe Prisoner of War Association has tried to encourage prisoners of war to get together to make representations. They should emulate New Zealand Veterans. I have never seen such a strong organization of veterans as the New Zealand Prisoner of War Association who have been very active in keeping the interests of their members before the governing authorities.
The purpose of this motion-and both the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Macintosh) and I collaborated very closely on this-is to get those men who have not been seen by the Pension Commission or the treatment services within the last years, examined and documented. For one thing preventive medicine is better than curative medicine at any time and, as my colleague said, the records of illnesses during those two or three years that the men were imprisoned were not very complete.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that there have been occasions when I have had to make a personal statement in support of one of those people who were in my camp attesting to the fact that this man had suffered from a cold and from certain privations because 10 or 15
February 3, 1969

Canada Evidence Act
years after liberation he developed tuberculosis or some other ailment of which there was no record. Because the man happened to have an old bronchial scar which showed up in his discharge records, it was said that the scar had been incurred prior to service. Every kind of excuse was given to refuse a legitimate claim to benefits while the man was undergoing treatment to cure tuberculosis. There were other ailments, such as stomach illnesses. I know of several men who are suffering from arthritis and nerves. There were also cases of alcoholism. Unfortunately, I know of several chaps in the same camp as I was who have undergone serious bouts of nervous depression. For some of them it has been too much, and they have done away with themselves.
If I had continued as minister, it would have been my aim to bring all of those men in and have them examined long before now. Such an examination would give us the records of what privation and malnutrition will do. I also suggest to the members of this house that in the long run it would save us some money because some of these men are going to develop serious illnesses which may be attributable to pensionable disabilities. Their lives will be shortened. We may be faced with heavy expense in treating a disease or some disability that is pensionable, and there may be a great argument about it. They become very hard cases. We should catch these conditions early and deal with them. Not only are we salvaging a veteran and adding some years to his life, but we will be learning more about the effects of the type of life veterans had to endure for some period of time. As I said, there are not that many men. Among the Dieppe prisoners, there were over 2,000. A number of them, like myself, have been through the hands of the Pension Commission for one reason or another. Some of them are now dead. On the army side there are not that many who have not been checked out. I would say today that the men we are really looking for are chaps from the air force because over the period from September 1939 to May 1945 many of the prisoners of war were airmen who had been shot down. The certainly outnumber the army prisoners of war.
I do not say that a prisoner of war has a greater claim to consideration from the point of view of sentiment or of the duty that he performed. He was a serviceman like many others, but he did not have to go through battle, as many did. So far as I was concerned, I was in one battle and that was it.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I do not say my treatment was worse than that of many other servicemen. We did tend to lose an awful lot of weight, and I did not weigh nearly as much when I was captured as I do now. But all my friends in my old regiment say the same thing, there is something in each case which goes back to those days when we were incarcerated in cold buildings during the winter and given poor food to eat. Then, there were the mental pressures, and so on. So, I make a plea to the government to take up this question. There are not many men involved, relatively, and I do not believe the expense would be great. It would take some time to organize, but I think something should be done. I will put the question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired I do now leave the chair to resume the same at
8.00	p.m.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for the Minister of Justice) for the third reading of Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks to make prior to consideration of the actual contents of Bill S-3. The first matter I want to raise may result from inadvertence, and I want to give the government house leader every break that is possible. Both of us are members of the committee on procedure and realize that the purpose of the change in the rules governing the legislative process was to shift the emphasis in the debate to the report stage and the third reading. Over the dinner hour, I searched diligently but could find no record of the transcript of our discussions in the

February 3, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
justice committee relating to this bill. How on earth can any reasonable person expect the members of this house to be able to discuss this or any other bill under these circumstances, having changed our procedure to put greater emphasis on the value of committee hearings?
As has been said by members on both sides of the house, hon. members of the house were to be given the opportunity to delve into the details of the bill and put their comments on record at committee hearings. In this way, they would not waste the time of the house asking questions. There are some sections of this bill that bother me.
I also went through the records of the Senate, with no cumulative index to assist me, to see when the legislation was handled there. What one has to do, Mr. Speaker, is to take the Hansard report of the other place and go through it section by section to see when the bill went through second reading, when it went through committee, and when it was read a third time. Third reading in the Senate occupied four lines. In other words, the record of the other place, as far as I and other hon. members are concerned, revealed precisely nil by way of any explanation of this bill, and was of no assistance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Abolish it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would not agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) there, because I have gone back to the reports of a committee of the other place that has examined the bill with care and the evidence and questioning have been of great help. But in this particular case, I cannot rely on what happened in the other place.
I hope that the government house leader, in calling this bill, was not aware that our own reports were not ready. In such circumstances, how are we going to place proper emphasis on the report stage and on third reading? We have downgraded second reading stage by having fewer speakers and by-agreeing that bills go to committee for examination so that hon. members are equipped to deal with them there. Yet, here we have this particular item called in the house and we have nothing to assist us. Either we have to stop this nonsense here and now, or what we hoped and I think quite rightly, was to be a change for the better in our procedure will go for naught.
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).}
It must be remembered that there are certain housekeeping requirements between hearing evidence in committees and the appearance of the reports which are made available to hon. members. I may be wrong about this; I thought my search during the dinner hour was a rather thorough one. I know that my secretary is a fairly faithful and competent woman who keeps my filings up to date. But as I say, I looked and looked and I could find no reports. If hon. members correct me and tell me that the reports regarding the study of Bill S-3 are in their hands, then I will apologize. Until that is established I will say that the calling of this bill at this time was an imposition on the house. It was quite unfair. I hope we are not left in the position, with other bills to come before us, of not having in our possession copies of the committee hearings. I know certain committees work faster than others, and I have no cause for complaint about the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, of which I am a member. Everything works fairly well in that committee; bills are sent to us to be studied and transcripts of proceedings are readily forthcoming.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I wish to emphasize that unless steps can be taken t o schedule properly the report stages and third reading stages of bills before this house, we ought to forget the new rules and revert back to the old rules. We ought to have committee transcripts in our hands at report and third reading stages.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not
saying the old rules necessarily were any better than our present rules; but please do not say you are going to make a change, claim advantages for that change, and then not deliver the goods.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They cannot deliver the evidence given before the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: My next point is made with all due apology and is not meant personally against any parliamentary secretary. I support my colleague for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and other hon. members of the house-after all, we have reached a stage of particular importance with regard to this bill-who asked for the responsible minister to be here to answer to the house. The parliamentary secretary may be able to give us certain information, but under our
February 3, 1969

system parliamentary secretaries have no responsibility. For this house to question the parliamentary secretary and hold him responsible for answers touching questions of policy is quite improper under the rules unless the roles of parliamentary secretaries are changed. Personally, I should like parliamentary secretaries to be given greater responsibilities. Their positions ought to have some tangible meaning. But that has not been done. All power is kept in tight, grubby little hands.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Grubby or crummy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is only
natural for members like the hon. member for Calgary North to be concerned about the implications of clause 2 of the bill, which amends section 9 of the Canada Evidence Act. If ever a clause sought to load the dice in favour of the prosecution, it is clause 2. I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head. I hope he has had even one tenth the experience in court of the hon. member for Calgary North, to say nothing of the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). This clause purports to say that when a witness is to be declared hostile a statement merely has to be made to the court to the effect that there is a difference between the evidence being given at the moment and evidence that was given elsewhere. The prior evidence must be reduced to writing. The court then is invited to declare the witness hostile. I say that is wrong. There must be proof of the facts alleged. A witness ought not to be declared hostile merely on the word of one man. After all, the entire matter ought to be looked into by way of examination and cross examination.
The hon. parliamentary secretary may not have the experience that trial lawyers have had with preliminary hearings, apres enquete. It is not necessary for defence counsel to call witnesses. Defence counsel has the right to examine the Crown's witnesses to see what kind of case the Crown has. There is a stage in justice where a preliminary hearing is held in order for the court to determine if there is sufficient evidence to substantiate the charge. That is, if there is a prima facie case. The accused or his counsel have the inalienable right to examine every iota of evidence put forward by the Crown to determine whether there is evidence to substantiate the laying of the charge. Of course, the Crown calls its witnesses, not necessarily all of them, to substantiate the validity of the charge, in the judgment of the Crown. That evidence is
Canada Evidence Act
recorded. Later, if there is the slightest difference between the evidence given at the preliminary inquiry and the evidence given at trial, the Crown prosecutor does not even have to prove the preliminary hearing transcript, because the wording of clause 2(2) is:
Where the party producing a witness alleges that the witness made at other times a statement in writing, or reduced to writing, inconsistent with his present testimony, the court may, without proof that the witness is adverse-
And so on and so forth. That is how a witness may be declared adverse and to my way of thinking this clause attempts to load the dice in favour of the Crown.
The minister ought to be here, Mr. Speaker. What were the government's reasons for bringing in such amendments? It must have had its reasons, although we do not know them not being possessed of the testimony given before the committee. We do not know what that testimony was and yet we are asked to pass this bill. The basic reason the hon. member who sought to adjourn debate on this bill this afternoon had for bringing forward his motion was that there is no transscript before the house of the evidence taken in committee. We therefore wonder why the government has advanced these amendments to this section.
I find myself very embarrassed, Mr. Speaker, at third reading to be asking such questions. After all, I am not a member of the committee that studied the bill, and that is the difficulty. Reasons for advancing these amendments may have been furnished before that committee but we do not know of those reasons because we have no transcript. The burden is on the government proposing the change to substantiate the need for this change in the law. The clause appears to me, and I am a lawyer, to be loading the dice in favour of the prosecution. That is all I will say on the point. But before I consent to passage of this bill, there must be a satisfactory explanation of the government's thinking. That explanation might be made available either through adjourning the debate so that we can obtain the transcript of evidence taken before the committee or by calling the minister-or at least having him present in the house-and allowing him to explain the government's thinking on the matter.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
My second point deals with clause 3 which purports to amend section 29 of the act and the definition of a financial institution. Again I wish we had the transcript of the committee

February 3, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
proceedings. Does a financial institution as defined under section 29(3)-I am referring to the bottom of page 3 of the bill-include treasury branches in the province of Alberta? There is a recent case, Green versus the Treasury Branch of Alberta and other parties, which alleges as a defence that the Treasury Branch is not a financial institution within the meaning of the act. This case went to the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill S-3, at the top of page 4 reads in part:
-any institution incorporated in Canada-
It is my information the Treasury Branches of the Province of Alberta are merely emanations of the treasury of the provincial government. I have never known the treasury of a province to be deemed to be incorporated. Therefore, by omission, do we perhaps have here a form of financial institution? These branches do a tremendous business in the Province of Alberta. One can consider the volume of business being transacted by the Caisse Populaire in the Province of Quebec which is comparable to the Treasury Branches in Alberta.

What did you say?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member if he is aware that the amendment has been requested by the credit unions of the province of Alberta?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: By the
caisses populaires of the province of Quebec.


Jean-Charles Cantin: By the credit unions.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Very well, but I am referring to the Treasury Branches-

Treasury branches are financial institutions carrying on the business of banking, and yet they have not been incorporated. Undoubtedly there was legislation in the past authorizing the government of the Province of Alberta to create branches of the provincial treasury. I would like to know from the minister-


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


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -or perhaps then the parliamentary secretary, as to whether the question of the provincial treasury branches of the Province of Alberta has

been considered in the light of this amendment. If not, then somebody had better do their homework. The debate should be adjourned and the necessary amendment moved to cover the point.
I have approached this bill as a Member of Parliament as well as a member of the legal profession. I have been unable to obtain any information regarding this act. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I have belaboured the point but I want to emphasize it and over-emphasize it, not only for this act but for other acts. My point is that unless and until the committee system is working sufficiently well to have the transcript of evidence before the members of this house no bill can be considered. I stress this point to the government house leader, and ask him to clarify this point. I am certain the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome), who is a lawyer as well as a member of the Procedure Committee will agree with me on this point. We agreed everything in our committee discussions would be transcribed at a later stage and everyone would be better informed. However, on this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are less informed. On that point, I would like to hear from both the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) and the government house leader.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I do not
intend to speak very long on this bill. I am a member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee and I share the feelings of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) when he complained of the absence of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner). I also agree with his complaint that we are asked to deal with the bill at this stage without having available to us the transcript of evidence given before the committee.
Having said that, I would now like to say that I see nothing difficult, sinister or improper regarding that section of the bill. It is a perfectly reasonable section and speaks for itself. It states, "the court may" not that "the prosecution may".


David Lewis: Without proof.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Without proof, certainly. Without proof of what? Without proof that the witness is adverse, a procedure which every practising lawyer realizes is a stupid procedure,-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Andrew Brewin: -whereby a witness must be provoked into some exhibition of irritation before being declared adverse. If this is not
February 3, 1969

done the witness cannot be cross-examined although he has been tampered with, has given a written statement, and is now giving a totally inconsistent statement. This amendment makes more sense than the law as it now is, and I do not know why so much time is being wasted on it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I rise to deal with some of the observations made by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I can assure him that his researches are correct. I am advised that the transcript of evidence is not now available of the proceedings in that committee. I am also advised that the committee on Tuesday, January 28 dealt with the bill for approximately one hour. No amendments were moved to change any provisions of this bill and more particularly with regard to the section which has so much concerned the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) and the hon. member for Edmonton West. I can assure them there was no attempt to take advantage of hon. members. The assumption was made, because of the apparent non-controversial aspect of the bill, that we could proceed.
When I stated to the house on Friday that it would be called as the third item of business for today I understood there would be no objection to proceeding with it because there appeared to be general agreement with the terms of the bill. I do not think I have to apologize to the hon. member for Calgary North because he is a member of the committee and knows his rights. He could have exercised them in the Committee.
This bill has been before parliament for many months. It started, Mr. Speaker, in the other place. It was on the record of, and considered by, the other place for some time. It was then referred to this house. It was not a bill which was hidden behind a money resolution. These terms have been available to the house for a very long time, and to the hon. member in particular. The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where it was considered and dealt with quite expeditiously. I think we had reason to believe there was no particular contest with respect to its terms. It was because of the understanding there was no contest that it was called forward to be dealt with by the house.


An hon. Member:: It is never good to make assumptions.
Canada Evidence Act


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I realize it is never good to make assumptions about the hon. members opposite. I must say I am concerned about the latent interest in this bill, but I think it can be reasonably said there was plenty of opportunity for investigation. No amendments were put forward at the committee stage. No hon. members, such as the hon. member for Calgary North, put forward any amendments. In my opinion it was not unfair to make the announcement last Friday. If any hon. member felt hard done by, then he should have spoken to me in that regard. My understanding was that the evidence would be available, but as I understand it there are different timetables for preparing the evidence and I quite appreciate the reasons for that.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
On the whole I feel that no injustice has been done by calling the bill at this time. It seems to me that if any hon. member felt hard done by, then I might have heard about it before the middle of this afternoon and been told that members felt the bill should not be brought forward.
The only other comment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that I wish to deal with is his objection to the fact that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Cantin) has charge of the conduct of this bill. I might recall to hon. members the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, has had the conduct of a great many pieces of legislation in this house, for which the hon. member for Edmonton West had the responsibility of speaking for this party on that side of the house.
With respect to the complaint of the hon. member for Edmonton West that the parliamentary secretary has the conduct of this bill-and I might read into his reference "a mere parliamentary secretary," and I say this as one who for five years was a parliamentary secretary-I say that the parliamentary secretary is fully capable of taking the bill through all its stages in this house, in committee, and everywhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I therefore say, Mr. Speaker, that there is no precedent for a valid objection to the conduct of legislation through this house by one of my colleagues who is a parliamentary secretary, and in particular by my colleague, the parliamentary

February 3, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
secretary from Quebec. I say there is no authority for that proposition whatsoever, and it is entirely within the proprieties when a qualified colleague of mine, such as the parliamentary secretary from Quebec, has the conduct of this particular bill.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in a position to debate the merits of the bill. This has not been my responsibility. But I notice that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), who has had a great deal of trial experience, who was a member of the standing committee and who participated in its deliberations, takes a different legal point of view from that of the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams). Again, I assert that there was no surprise and no unfairness in the calling of this bill at this time. If there was a feeling of surprise, if hon. members really after a period of months were not prepared to go ahead with the bill, then I submit that I should have been told about it prior to the calling of the bill this afternoon. On the whole, it seems to me it would be reasonable to go ahead and give the bill third reading.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfooi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise somewhat hesitantly to speak on a bill dealing mainly with matters which might well concern members of the legal profession. I admit quite openly that I am not a member of the legal profession but I have always believed that justice must be fair, must be just, and also must appear to be just and fair. On reading over clause 2 at the top of page 4 of this bill, I can hardly assume that the measure appears to be fair.
I have listened to the arrogant member for Rosedale-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -the hon. member for Rose-dale (Mr. Macdonald), if hon. members prefer that, tell us that nobody suggested there was any opposition to the bill and therefore we had better rush it through parliament in a hurry. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I ask hon. members opposite what would have happened if we had rushed through the estate taxes bill in a hurry, on October 22 last? What would have been the effect on the public today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That was not done. In the interim, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) heard an outcry and some changes have been made in that bill. I do not believe enough Changes were made, but this was one good

effect from having some feedback, some delay, some criticism and some thinking about the bill.
I was not a member of the standing committee that examined this bill, but I was a member of the rules committee.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Until you were replaced.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Until I was replaced, as the hon. member for Rosedale says. I had an opportunity to travel overseas on a NATO committee at a time when I thought the government was reversing its stand on NATO, and I thought I should concern myself more with that problem.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Like the Postmaster General (Mr. Kierans).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I reluctantly gave up my position on the rules committee but before doing so I firmly understood that no bills, after examination in committee, would be debated on third reading until the committee proceedings had been printed and all hon. members of the house had an opportunity to examine them.
A parliamentary secretary on the government benches may well say, "Well, there was no opposition. We had no trouble about this." I reply that all 264 members of the House of Commons are of equal importance. My constituency, the constituency of Crowfoot, is of equal importance to that of any other constituency in the country. Therefore, I should be given the opportunity, the right to examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not this bill purports to be fair, purports to be just, and in my mind and in my constituents' minds contributes to the just society in which I and my constituents might well believe.
From my brief skimming through the bill, and in particular through clause 2, and without having the committee evidence before me, I cannot honestly say that a witness should be re-examined without proof in any way, shape or form that he is an adverse witness.
Again, with respect to the clause dealing with banking institutions I do not believe it should exclude provincial treasury branches. When the question of banking institutions came up in the debate on the bill amending the Farm Credit Corporations Act I spoke of the part the treasury branches played in the province of Alberta in creating competition. We in this party believe competition is the guide to efficiency, is the key to efficiency in this society of ours which is founded on free
February 3, 1969

Canada Evidence Act
enterprise. But hon. members to the right of you, Mr. Speaker, believe that if they can hide the evidence-and this is the only conclusion I can draw-then ignorance is bliss; all shall pass and everybody will forgive because in the name of the just society everything is right and nothing is wrong.
I don't believe that because I believe that justice must appear to be just. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) says, in effect, that in the past the way in which this matter has been handled in the courts has been ridiculous and therefore we might as well pass this amending legislation. A number of members in the Hitler administration, Ger-hardt included, believed, "We must push on; we must reach decisions in a hurry." The suggestion is that counsel must be given the right to cross-examine their own witnesses if they find the witnesses are adverse, but without proof that they are adverse. I cannot for the life of me understand why they do not know that beforehand. They call them as witnesses in the first instance.
The minister who has just spoken was the chairman of the rules committee. He reported to the house on the rules. He cannot honestly say-


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, and just as a matter of accuracy the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair) was the chairman of the rules committee.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I accept the point of privilege. The minister wasn't the chairman of the rules committee.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The Gray Eminence.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He was the gray eminence of the chairman of the rules committee. He dominated the rules committee-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As Mr. Goebbels.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He brought the wishes of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) into the rules committee. One of the clear, explicit understandings of the rules committee was that after second reading a bill should be passed to a committee. Then the committee would examine it extensively, and after extensive examination the bill should come back into the house for third reading. At that time the committee evidence would be printed and each member of the house would have the evidence of the committee available to him.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This has not been done in respect of this bill, and I issue a warning to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to every member opposite in the government that this should not happen again with regard to other committee proceedings. This is not fair or just. It is no more fair or just than this bill appears to be when it refers to witnesses being declared hostile without proof. It is not fair or just when we consider that the treasury branches, which have played such an important part in accepting deposits and lending money to the public, will be excluded under section 3 of the bill.
I was amazed when the minister said that he was not aware of any conflict or opposition to the bill. He as much as said that had he known he would never have brought it forward, but, rather, would have waited until the evidence was printed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just another "booboo" on the part of the government.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is exactly correct. The minister stated he did not know there was opposition or that anybody would rise and debate the issue. He thought the government would receive carte blanche from this house. I suggest to him now that if he had known there was going to be opposition then, by his own statement, he would have held the bill until the evidence of the committee had been printed. Surely, then he should have accepted the motion this afternoon to adjourn the debate. This would have given hon. members an opportunity to read that evidence. The hon. minister, in my opinion, admitted that had he known of this opposition he would have held up third reading until members had sufficient time to examine the evidence to ascertain whether or not justice would be done or would appear to be done as a result of the application of this change.
The only conclusion I can draw is that the government is attempting to hide evidence and control or manipulate the House of Commons. After all, this is a debating forum in a free country. As we regulate ourselves more and more, thus allowing ourselves to be manipulated, we find our freedoms slowly slipping away. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house leader that Canadians as a whole are becoming aware of this erosion of our freedoms. This proposed change is one more bit of evidence that, in this way, our freedoms are being eroded and will continue

February 3, 1969
Canada Evidence Act
to erode if this government is allowed to pursue this course. Certainly, we in the opposition and those to my left must be alerted to stand on guard against this continuous erosion. This is a planned attack under the guise of a just society. This bill is a perfect example of what I am suggesting. Under the guise of a just society, the government is attempting to erode the freedoms of Canadians as we now know them.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a question of privilege which arises after listening to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Macdonald), the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) and others. Under the new rules, this house is being asked to give third reading to certain legislation before the evidence of the standing committee has been printed. We have heard the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Crowfoot and the President of the Privy Council state that the evidence of the proceedings in this committee have not been printed. We must assume that the Liberal party and the government do not care whether their members know what this legislation is all about because they are going to vote for it anyhow.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a guestion of privilege I would appreciate his coming to it quickly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can come to it very quickly, Mr. Speaker. I can come to it so quickly it will make your head swim.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the members over there have shouted and made their jokes-


An hon. Member:: Have some respect for the Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would say this to him. The giving of a bill third reading without having the evidence of the standing committee printed so that hon. members can examine it and find out what the bill contains involves a privilege that affects the whole house. Surely, the new rules do not intend that a bill should be put through a committee, but that it doesn't matter what the committee says and that the evidence need not be printed until months later at which time somebody on examination might find out that someone made a mistake. If that is not a question of

privilege in this house there never has been one.
I am shocked to think that we can go through third reading stage under the new rules, which certain people embraced, without the evidence of the committee being printed so that hon. members, who because of other duties were not able to attend the committee meetings, could find out what the bill says and means. If that is not a point of privilege, I do not know what is. I would ask the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker to find where in the new rules it says committee reports should be printed before third reading is given in this House of Commons. What kind of a place is this when evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You know why they say "order, order"? It is because they are a group of sheep in a sheep pasture.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I don't intend to sit down, sir, because you state "order", because I am not going to until-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will resume his seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -you rule whether or not this is a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Let me make this observation. In my view the question of privilege constitutes more of a grievance about our proceedings. In this form it contains a recommendation that in future the evidence of a committee should be before the house prior to third reading. As I said, I do not think it constitutes a question of privilege but it might be taken by the house as a recommendation by an hon. member that in future this sort of situation might be avoided.
Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is as follows, that Bill S-3, to amend the Canada Evidence Act, be now read a third time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact that you are standing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You are standing and I am standing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat.
February 3, 1969


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: As far as I am concerned if this house can consider the bill without the
evidence-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member resume his seat. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before you put the question, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this: what a phoney place this is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: -when we can pass a bill without the benefit of the study made by the committee, when members can stand in their places and vote without receiving the evidence from the committee. What a phoney vote this is going to be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Before putting the motion to hon. members I might say that the Clerk of the House has drawn my attention to the difficulty in which we have placed ourselves. Hon. members must realize that we have been operating under new rules and it has been obvious during the past week or so that the administrative facilities of the house have been taxed to the full. This has resulted in some difficulties.
At the same time, the situation with which we are now faced is an indication of the trouble which may result from unexpected changes in the order of business in the house. It seems to me that under the new rules we may find ourselves in a position where it is more important than ever not to change the
Division
business of the house, particularly in connection with the necessity for notice. It is obvious we are all in the dark to a considerable extent as to the functioning of these rules and it will require a great deal of co-operation on the part of all hon. members-on the part of the opposition and, I am sure, on the part of the government.
The Chair will make a special effort to try to overcome the difficulties which have arisen and I can personally assure the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) that the important matter he has raised will be looked into very closely, and an effort will be made to ensure that there is no repetition of the administrative problems we have faced in this particular instance.


Mr. Hales:: Mr. Speaker, I did not vote. This was not because I was paired tout because I felt I was not in a position to vote until I had read the evidence of the committee.


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I merely want to state that we in this party felt constrained to vote against this legislation because we did not feel it reasonable that we should be called upon to pass judgment on the bill when the evidence given in the committee to which it was referred was not available to us.



VETERANS LAND ACT


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that Bill C-152, to amend the Veterans Land Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on Thursday, January 30, 1969 be concurred in.


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


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


Jean-Eudes Dubé: that the bill be read a third time and do pass.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker I would ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs whether he has any statement that he would like to make at this point.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: No, Mr. Speaker. I did make a statement on second reading. The bill then went to committee and the committee received evidence from the director of the Veterans Land Act. I have no statement to make at this time, but if there are any questions members of the opposition wish to ask I will be available.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on third reading of Bill C-152 I am glad to report that this was one time when there was general agreement amongst all party members on both sides of the house in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. The Committee only had to clarify and verify items in the bill concerning the welfare of a very important segment of our population, thus giving recognition to those who make up a very important part of our nation, the war veterans. This bill exemplifies the realization of all members of parliament that it is the duty of the government of Canada to continually review and provide for the war veterans, so that they can have the opportunity of providing a livelihood for themselves and their families.
It is significant that today, in this House of Commons, a notice of motion was put forth by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) asking the government to give consideration to the immediate organization of a program of medical examination of all members of the Canadian active service forces who were prisoners of war in world war II and who have not been examined in the past five years. This shows that we, as representatives of the citizens of this country, must constantly be reminded of the part played by war veterans in the building of this great nation of Canada. This is a responsibility that we must never take lightly.
We, as members of the committee, were pleased that the rate of interest on loans up to $6,000, which was established in 1942 at 3) per cent, will not be affected by this bill. The main item of change will permit the rate on loans of over $6,000 and up to $20,000 to be determined from time to time by the Governor in Council. In this regard I feel it should be mentioned that the Royal Canadian Legion, who represent the majority of war veterans in Canada, recognized the sharp increase in recent years in mortgage rates, bond interest and the rate of interest on money lent by the Bank of Canada. They, therefore, recommended that the rate be that
February 3, 1969

Veterans Land Act
paid by the government to secure the necessary funds, with administrative costs being borne by the government.
I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation of the Royal Canadian Legion; but we are all prepared to realize as responsible citizens-and I am sure the war veteran realizes too-that as the cost of money increases progressively this extra cost must be borne by all citizens who need to borrow.
I, and the members of the standing committee from the opposition side, are satisfied that the veteran who applies for the average loan of, say, $20,000 will be in the slightly preferred category that he deserves. On a loan of this proportion he will pay an average of a little over 6 per cent, because he will be paying 3 J per cent on the first $6,000 and 7| per cent on the remainder.
We are concerned, however, about the availability of funds. We are concerned that the amount available each year has dropped until it is now $74 million. We hope that we will not hear the old cries of "restraint in spending" and "feasibility studies" and "task forces" coming to the fore. We hope money will be provided for loans to veterans for as long as they are required, and that the amount provided will be commensurate with the needs of all applicants. I am prepared, however, to believe that the government is aware of the debt we owe the veterans of this country and will live up to its responsibility to make available the necessary funds which will continue to provide opportunities for these important citizens of Canada.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Speaker, there is one matter relative to this legislation that I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. I realize that under the new rules it is awkward, if not impossible, for the minister to reply directly to any question that I might put to him now. However, perhaps he can give the matter consideration and indicate when speaking later this evening, or by letter, what can be done about it.
Bill C-152 will have the effect of increasing the interest rate payable by veterans on all loans granted to them by the director of the Veterans Land Act. However, I notice, in particular, that clause 9 of this bill provides that in the case of all loans or advances that have already been applied for by a veteran the old rate of 5 per cent under the old act will continue to apply.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
That is logical enough, but what about those cases where a veteran may not have made a formal application as such but has brought to the attention of the director of the Veterans Land Act that he has a particular problem in connection with his property or his house. The director has agreed that additional funds are required and has stated in writing that the veteran is eligible for a loan of $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000 if he cares to make formal application for such loan? Clause 9 says specifically that the old rate of 5 per cent shall apply only to such loans as have already been applied for by the veteran. Those applications must be in the hands of the director at the time of the coming into force of this act. Does the minister not think it appropriate to interpret this legislation so that undertakings in writing given by the director to veterans at any time up to the coming into force of this act will be covered. I know the bill does not specify undertakings in writing in any of its provisions; it refers only to formal applications for assistance approved by the director. Perhaps the minister can indicate now whether veterans who have had dealings with the director, and who have been promised in writing loans at the old rate, will in fact be able to obtain those loans at the old rate up until the time Bill C-152 comes into effect.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Dub6, seconded by-


Stanley Howard Knowles: On
a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the minister was rising to make some kind of response.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister did not appear to be rising quickly. If he does so now, he will be recognized.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have had a quick consultation with the officers of the table, who have brought to my attention the fact that the minister does not have the right to reply.


David Lewis: Except by consent.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall therefore put the question.
February 3, 1969
5084	COMMONS
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that the minister said to the hon. member for Hum-ber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) he would not be making a statement. I do not think that the word "no" can be taken as a speech.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair considers these things very seriously. It may be that the minister was rising to reply to a point of order. With this interpretation he might be allowed now, at this stage, to make a statement.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Speaker, may I express my appreciation to the hon. member for Humber -St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) for his contribution to the debate. I assure him that I, too, am very concerned about the availability of funds for the coming year. I hope there will be sufficient funds to supply all applicants, but this decision has not been made at this time.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Schrey-er) raised a specific question about clause 9. I wish to assure him that all applications made before September 13 and before the coming into force of this act will come under the old rate of interest. As to other applications, the standing of which is not clear, I assure him that they will receive a very liberal interpretation.


David Lewis: Which liberal?


Mr. Speaker:: According to the new rules, the minister has not closed debate. Before any hon. member takes advantage of this I shall put the question.


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


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-5, An Act to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act-The Postmaster General.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I realize the President of the Privy Council told us not long ago we should be proceeding with this bill, but it 

happens that copies of the bill are not in our files. I do not have a copy, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) has no copy and the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has no copy. It seems that no hon. member here has a copy.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Take up Bill S-4.


Stanley Howard Knowles: think we ought to have copies of the bill, even if we do not have time to read it.


Eric William Kierans: It was passed by the Senate on October 8. Hon. members should have it on file.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We
have checked all our files, but I can find no hon. member who has a copy.


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised that additional copies are being obtained. The Clerk of the house assures me the bill has been distributed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps we might proceed with the next item of business, No. 27 on the order paper, having to do with the marking of articles containing precious metals.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall this order stand for the time being?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



PRECIOUS METALS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Consideration of Bill S-4, An Act respecting the marking of articles containing precious metals, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. -The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, this bill was reported back from committee without amendment. During the committee proceedings the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a question with regard to clause 8(4).


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that no debate is allowed unless there is an amendment. I understand there is no amendment.
February 3. 1969


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Oh, yes, there is.


Stanley Ronald Basford: May I ask the unanimous consent of the house to move an amendment?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is basic to the rules that there may be no debate by the house unless notice has been given of an amendment. If hon. members, by agreement, wish to allow the minister to make a statement and propose an amendment at this time, it is of course up to hon. members to make that suggestion.


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On a point of order. As the minister has explained, I made representations with regard to one of the clauses. The minister took it under advisement, consulted one of his officials and advised me personally he would propose the amendment. I am told that notice has been filed with the Clerk.


David Lewis: It is not in Votes and Proceedings.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is not in
Votes and Proceedings. This afternoon it was decided we would try to get to this bill and that the minister would ask for the consent of the house to put forward the amendment, which is only one word. As far as we are concerned, this would be acceptable. It would be strange if it were not. That is why this rather extraordinary procedure is taking place at this time and I hope the members of the house and the Chair will accept it.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course the Chair has no choice in the matter. It is up to hon. members. The standing order requires notice, even if notice has been filed before six o'clock. It has not appeared in Votes and Proceedings. However, if there is unanimous agreement we will proceed. There will be no difficulty from the Chair.
I see the hon. member for York South is anxious to contribute.


David Lewis: This is a new procedure, Mr. Speaker. Either all hon. members of the house, including Ministers of the Crown, will abide by it or we are going to be in trouble, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
5085
Precious Metals Legislation


David Lewis: I know other members of the house seeking to move amendments at the report stage without the notice being in Votes and Proceedings will be denied the opportunity if it suits the majority so to do, whereas exceptions are made in this case. I therefore cannot agree that it should be done. It seems all that was necessary was for this not to be called today so that the amendment could appear in Votes and Proceedings.
Either we are going to have a parliamentary regime in accordance with the new rules which will be orderly and every member will know exactly what is happening. Then members will learn to put amendments in such a way that they will appear in Votes and Proceedings and be proceeded with in a way which we have now decided to proceed or we start making exceptions. If that is done, the regime which we have set up will come tumbling down.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It already has.


David Lewis: The solution is very simple. If the minister is of the opinion the amendment he wants to move is of some importance, all that is necessary is that this particular order not be called, leaving it for tomorrow or the day after which will give time for the amendment to appear in Votes and Proceedings. In this way, the rules we have adopted will not be torn up.
I suggest we are all learning the new rules. There are a good many disadvantages when compared to the old rules because some of us feel we are deprived of the opportunity to ask questions in the house and receive answers from ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: I think we ought to be strict about following these rules if they are to mean something in the development of an orderly procedure.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: On a point of order also, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member and his group feel they cannot assent to the change proposed by the official opposition, then the disposition of the government would be not to go ahead with the bill at this time. On that basis, I wonder if the hon. member's group would be ready to go ahead with Bill S-5?


David Lewis: Yes, we are prepared to go ahead with S-5.


Mr. Speaker:: We will deem it that this order has not been called, so that no hon.

February 3, 1969
5086	COMMONS
Canadian Overseas Telecommunications member will be prejudiced from filing a notice if this bill should not be called tomorrow.



CANADIAN OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ACT


Eric William Kierans: the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill S-5, to amend the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act.
He said: It gives me great pleasure, Mr. Speaker to recommend the two basic amendments in this bill for approval by this house.
I may say in explanation of the main overseas telecommunications service that it was formed in 1949. It was established for a number of purposes among which the most important was to establish, maintain and operate in Canada and elsewhere external communications services for the conduct of public communications.
Since 1949 until the present time, Mr. Speaker, this Crown Corporation has had an enviable history of accomplishment and achievement. It has accomplished very well all of the objectives which the government and the people of Canada laid down for it in 1949.
At the present time it is a corporation with assets exceeding $83 million. Its revenue last year was $24 million and it showed a profit of $4 million. The corporation has shown a profit for every one of the 18 years it has been in existence and during that time has paid to the government over $20 million in interest charges, $19,912,000 in income tax, and has returned $16 million of its advances from the government. The officers and employees of the corporation have proved themselves capable of managing their affairs in the interests of the Canadian people and I think that is a real justification.
Their past record justifies their request at this time, which I am happy to put forward, for additional powers and greater flexibility. The corporation is a member of the International Telecommunication Satellite Consortium and represents Canada on that board. It is much concerned with the expansion of satellite services all over the world and of course maintains Canada's interest and attention in all that goes on in international satellite relations. The corporation itself is expanding the use of Atlantic satellites to cope with the
[Mr. Speaker.)

need for more capacity to cater for increasing demand for service between Canada and European countries and foresees the need for a Canadian earth station on the West coast for operations with the Pacific satellites. As is well known the corporation some years ago built an earth station at Mill Village in Nova Scotia at a cost of some $12 million. An additional earth station is now being built there which will have the capacity to receive communications from satellites including the French satellite when it is launched.
I feel the people in Canada should be more aware of the contribution that this corporation makes. At the present time it has inaugurated overseas dataphone service and it expects this service also will be very profitable. This has been background information for the benefit of hon. members and I will now go to the bill specifically, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
As it noted in Bill S-5, we wish to amend section 2(f). In the original act section 2(f) says:
"external telecommunication services" means the telecommunication services between Canada and any place outside of Canada and between Newfoundland and any other part of Canada;
Section 6(b) also makes reference to "Newfoundland and any other part of Canada." When the corporation was formed Newfoundland had become Canada's tenth province but from a telecommunications point of view it was overseas and the service was provided by the Canadian Marconi Company by high frequency radio.
When under the act, chapter 42 (1949) the C.O.T.C. was formed, the corporation expropriated the property and equipment of the Canadian Marconi Company used in connection with its external services; that is, radio stations at Drummondville and Yamachiche. It was not practical at that time to exclude from the total expropriation that part of the equipment used for service with Newfoundland, although it had by that time become the tenth province.
The corporation undertook to provide the additional facilities necessary to meet the growing demand for service between the island and the mainland. However, it rapidly became clear that this service should more properly rest in the hands of a domestic carrier and accordingly after lengthy negotiations these facilities were transferred to Canadian National Telecommunications on January 1, 1966. Therefore, to bring this act
February 3, 1969

up to date it is desirable to remove the references to Newfoundland.
With respect to the second amendment that We recommend, the figures that I have quoted give you some idea of the tremendous performance, the strength and the size of the corporation, and therefore of the capacity of the people who direct it to handle their own affairs. Their power, flexibility and ability to make decisions are gravely limited by a section in the original act which reads:
Unless the approval of the Governor in Council is first obtained, the corporation shall not
(a) enter into an agreement involving any expenditure in excess of fifty thousand dollars:
With the establishment of cable systems between Bermuda, Canada and other countries, and with the corporation investing in satellite systems and switching systems, it is continually coming before Treasury Board for approval of a number of decisions that we feel the directors should have the power to make themselves. For example, during the last six years Orders in Council were requested for 146 different actions taken by the board of directors. I seriously question whether any more than 30 or 40 of those should have been forthcoming. That was one part of the limitation of power. Subparagraph (b) was another and provides that the corporation shall not:
-enter into for a period exceeding three years any agreement or lease that involves an expenditure in any year of more than five thousand dollars;
Hon. members will realize that when a corporation with annual revenues of $24 million, with assets exceeding $80 million, with total fixed assets in the order of $97 million-that, of course, is not the depreciated figure-is faced with a limitation on the directors that they shall not enter into any lease involving an expenditure of more than $5,000 in any year, it is a serious limitation.
Then there is another limitation in subparagraph (c) which says that the corporation shall not:
-acquire any real or personal property, the cost of acquisition of which exceeds the sum of fifty thousand dollars, or in any manner dispose of any such property having an original or book value exceeding the sum of five thousand dollars.
Just two or three weeks ago I had to approve a request to the Treasury Board that the corporation be permitted to sell some used, obsolete equipment the original value of 29180-322*
Business of the House
which was about $9,000. These amendments will avoid this procedure. It is time consuming. It limits the capacity of the directors to handle their own affairs, a capacity which has been well demonstrated during the years, and so I heartily recommend that these amendments be approved.


David Lewis: May I ask
the minister a question before he sits down, Mr. Speaker. Would he explain how the administration of the corporation gets greater powers under the amendment in clause 3 of the bill than it had before, when it needs to have the recommendation of the Treasury Board and the approval of the Governor in Council before it enters into any agreement or lease?


Eric William Kierans: What will happen is that the Treasury Board will lay down the same rules that apply to other crown corporations. The Treasury Board will prescribe such limits as it may consider to be appropriate. In other words, the limitations presently listed in the legislation may not be the limitations which the Treasury Board will set. The corporation has to be under some control but that control would be less, at least as to physical amount, than presently exists.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of hon. members perhaps the government house leader would be agreeable to putting on the record again the business which the government proposes to bring to the house tomorrow and Wednesday.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as indicated on Friday last it will be the government's intention to call as the first item No. 48 on the order paper, that is to say, the motion for second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole of Bill C-162 to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act. We would hope we could make some progress on that bill and possibly by leave get it through all stages. If we are successful in that, we would then call as the second item No. 50 on the order paper, the motion for second reading and reference to Committee of the Whole of Bill C-165 to amend the Income Tax Act and the Estate Tax Act.
February 3, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under standing order 40 deemed to have been moved.


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


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I have opted out of my particular question that was set for debate at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)



EDUCATION-RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING REPORT OF COMMITTEE

Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, last week I directed to the secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) a question concerning some recommendations of the Franco-Ontari-an Committee on cultural life which were presented to the Ontario Minister of Education.
That report contains some very important recommendations on federal institutions which come under the central government.
In my question, I asked the Secretary of State whether he intended to answer favourably the request of the Franco-Ontarian Committee on cultural life that the C.B.C. establish French radio stations (AM and FM) and television stations wherever there is a sufficient number of French-speaking people in Ontario.
As I have been unable to get from the Secretary of State an answer to that question which is, I feel, of capital importance, not only to French-speaking people in Ontario but also to English-speaking people and to the whole country, I was bent on raising it tonight.
In order that the Secretary of State, hon. members and the Canadian people might have a better understanding of the purport of my question, I hasten to quote two recommendations made by the Franco-Ontarian Committee on cultural life. The first one reads as follows:
That French radio and television stations, in Ontario continue to be supplied through Montreal, but that local and regional production centres be established in Ottawa, Toronto, Windsor and Sudbury so as to form a Franco-Ontarian radio and television network.

The system, while complying with the standards of quality approved by the C.B.C., would be responsible for Ontario public affairs and the development of local talent.
The second recommendation reads as follows:
That the C.B.C., while maintaining its standards of quality, offer programming which is better suited to the interests of Franco-Ontarians, when the C.B.C. station is the only French-speaking one in an area.
Mr. Speaker, the C.B.C. has certainly made great efforts to help the Franco-Ontarians in the last few years, but the present services are far from satisfactory.
It is worth noting that in Ontario, there is only one French television station, CBOFT, the C.B.C. station in Ottawa, and that there is no other private French television station.
The Corporation offers French television to a great number of French Canadians of the "Middle North" of Ontario, that is the Sudbury and North Bay region, and to those of the "Far North" or the Timmins, Kapuskasing and Hearst area. Of course, this is a great help to the French Canadians of Northern Ontario, but it is not enough, because often they do not have much interest in programs originating in Montreal and Quebec City. Besides, and that is the most important point, for the French-Canadians of Southern Ontario who are quite numerous, there is no French television station at all.
Mr. Speaker, if we accept the principles underlayng the Canadian constitution, if we recognize the bilingual and bicultural nature of Canada, if we sincerely want to safeguard the French-Canadian culture in North America, we must think of taking immediate steps to correct the gross injustice being done to almost three-quarters of a million Franco-Ontarians and to provide them quickly with the means not only to survive but also to develop in a normal way.
We all agree that mass media can play a leading role as a medium of culture. However, without any newspapers, radio or TV of their own, Franco-Ontarians are bound to disappear, as is now the case, considering the increasing number of them who are unavoidably assimilated.
Mr. Speaker, the Franco-Ontarians are not asking for any privileges, they are only demanding their rights. They are only asking for the same treatment the English-speaking minority gets in Quebec. In every Quebec community where there is a sufficient number of English-speaking people, the latter can
February 3, 1969

enjoy radio and television in their own language.
We must stop identifying French Canada with Quebec and recognize that French Canada comprises Ontario, New Brunswick and reaches out to the west, across the whole continent. The government, under the clever leadership of our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) undertook to protect the rights of minorities; it undertook to promote bilingualism and biculturalism across the country wherever it is deemed necessary and the people of Canada have accepted that fact, judging from the results of the June 25 election. I know the Secretary of State is more than inclined to do something in this respect.
If Ontario becomes a truly bilingual province where the two great cultures will be allowed to develop and enlarge through one another, in the most complete harmony, it will become an example of good understanding and of co-operation for the other provinces. This will belie the views held by some Quebec extremists by proving to them that Confederation can and will operate and thus we will have taken a great step toward the achievement of national unity.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask once again the Secretary of State if he intends to assent to the recommendations of the Franco-Ontarian Committee on cultural life.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the recommendations of the Franco-Ontarian Committee on cultural life have been considered with
DEBATES	5089
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion a great deal of interest by the Secretary of State and the C.B.C.
As a matter of fact, the C.B.C. has established an internal committee to consider the whole matter of broadcasting in French. This matter is now being considered by the officials of the corporation and it is hoped that a policy might be implemented as funds become available.
I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that a new French language radio station has been licensed in Windsor, Ontario, and that the possibility of issuing a permit for the operation of a television station is now under study.

I might also mention that the C.B.C. is hoping to make application in the near future for French television service in my own city, the third largest French speaking city in Canada, Toronto, and also Pembroke. Another area the C.B.C. is seriously considering for this service at the present time is the whole northern Ontario region in which my hon. friend is so interested. Extension of service is planned for that region in accordance with the representations of the hon. member and his colleagues from northern Ontario. I am advised, too, that other communities are also in the corporation's mind. The whole question of French language service is of great, current concern to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.12 p.m.


Tuesday, February 4, 1969